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

Women's "work" whether it be unpaid or paid is devalued by capitalism.

Whether men have devalued women's labour is not so clear, before we settled the land and men domesticated animals and realised that a surplus could be traded for wealth, there was a division of labour. Women were valued economically because all labour is socially necessary, women provided a lot of the food, they worked from home making things that were useful as well as looking after children. What has happened though is that men and women are not working for themselves and our values are shaped by the material conditions of our lives, in terms of productivity and wealth.

When work becomes synonymous only with exchange value (money) it becomes obvious that the value of the work is recognised only in money and that any work that creates wealth is valued higher than another job that creates less surplus profit. That is why motherhood is devalued, caring is devalued and all domestic labour, it is unpaid and therefore of least value under capitalism.

So whilst it is not clear that men set out to devalue women's work what is clear from this thread is that some women do.

but women cared and worked at the same time. you take the baby to the fields with you. my GGma took her babies to the shop.

they werent SAHMs.... motherhood was not a full time job. am i missing something?

Without those 'low grade' 'zero value' child carers many parents would never progress in their careers

Yes you are missing something, more women worked for themselves, more families worked as a unit. Women's caring and childcare in particular has been pushed further to the margins of society, over time, more private and isolated. With each family responsible for itself, economically and socially, in all ways and with women's work hidden from view so that no one dare question whether in fact it's a gift to the capitalist class. Just imagine if your husband as individual had to go to work, earn a wage, enough to feed and clothe himself and his children, pay the mortgage and then pay you for 50 hrs of childcare. Just imagine how much his salary would have to be! just imagine the effect that would have on the bottom line.

I work from home, my children come with me to the field! but that isn't an option for most women.

Oh, I might also add that under neo-liberalism it is becoming increasingly clear that more and more it is now the sole responsibility of the impoverished and devalued worker to provide everything from an ever decreasing salary, health, education and welfare are all under attack. This fact sits side by side with a huge consolidation of class power and wealth.

mini - i agree with this more women worked for themselves, more families worked as a unit. but i dont comprehend the concept of getting paid for looking after your own DCs. it is not a job.

Neither do I, I don't think anyone should be paid to look after their own children, what I do think is though, a single full time wage should be enough for a family and it would have been except for two things, globalisation and disempowered labour.

being a SAHM is probably more depressing these days because there are fewer women choosing that role so SAHMs are isolated. In my Mum's day, all the women on her street stayed at home with their children. Fast forward 35 yrs and No one I know does so I'm isolated and yes, a little depressed. Not sure the answer is everyone working though.

I have been both sides of this story.

A working professional, then a working professional mum/ wife, then working professional single parent, then working professional mum, wife and stepmum.

I then started working for my DH as he has his own company - he had it already when we met. I worked for him because I decided I didn't want to, well actually could not manage to raise DS, twins and have step sons every weekend/ holidays. Then DSS1 moved in with us and now I have super cute and squidgy DD (5 weeks)

I will work for DH in my capacity as I did before, but will work from home mostly. It is paid work - but accounts are joint - and saves him a fortune employing someone else to do the job!

DH also works from home if and when he can and is more than happy to share the childcare.

Importantly I am happy, actually the happiest I have been in my life. I am however not an intensive parent. I do agree with the comparison to a cleaner though as with 14 months old twin boys, 5 week old DD and 2/3 older boys who love mud and rain there is a lot of clearing up.

I would say my work is as hard and days are as long as they were as a working professional - but I would say the thanks for it is far greater.

Madmomma, that is a shame,

I live in a village where there is a fair mix, and I have some SAHM friends, all of whom are very strong characters and happy in their chosen role.

I also have friends who work happily and have CMs or au pairs or even one SAHD.

IT must be much harder if you are on you own...

There are quite a lot of SAHMs in my area and a few SAHDs. About 50% of my DTs class (upper primary age) are SAHP. It is a villagey type place and we know each other quite well which is nice and go for coffees etc. It is a fairly affluent area but with small pockets of poverty. I'd say most of the other half of the parents work part time and I only know a couple who work all day every day say 7am-7pm (inc travel). It must be alot harder if you are the only SAHM in the area.

and why should I have to do my own cleaning?

At the moment you are lucky and can find people to employ-if everyone took Xenia's advice seriously you wouldn't get any and it would be a case of having to do your own.
Of course you wouldn't get any childcare either because it is low grade. I want high grade care for my DCs- and I want intelligent women doing it who have chosen it because they think it is the best job possible-not because they can't manage anything else. We already have the ludicrous position where you can earn more on a supermarket checkout than looking after children.

Unfortunately most women don't get the choice any more anyway-they have to work. I was told by someone today about someone who has just had their baby and is terribly upset, but she has to go back to work-she has no option.

"I said it would be interesting to hear the views of the children who have had xenia's ideal 100% every day."

oooh, you're back.

what you said was "I would be very interested in hearing from her children I ammsurevtheynwould have a different story to tell"

in what way would it be interesting and what kind of difference do you think would be in their stories?

'Whether men have devalued women's labour is not so clear...'

It is 100% clear.
Hence the failure to pay women the same salary for the same work.
It is even evident in the wholesale employment of women in some industries like NI's linen mills because women could be paid far less than men.

YoYo, even the courts can understand the concept of a sahm contributing to the bottom line of a family unit by saving the family childcare, cooking and housekeeping costs that would otherwise be incurred, and the boilerplate of many divorce settlements includes (or used to) references to the sahp's frugality..

I disagree that taking care of children is not work and shouldn't be paid. If you had to find someone else to do it you would have to pay them, therefore it is work.

Although by that rationale if you had to find someone else to feed you, dress you, wash you etc that would also be work and yet we don't consider it a job deserving of payment when we do these things for ourselves, we consider it...well, living.

Similarly from a philosophical viewpoint, caring for your own child is also not a "job", it is an extension of caring for yourself.

Gosh Xenia, you really have life all figured out. Tell us again how your marriage worked out?

I really and truly do not understand.

There is not enough room in the boardroom for every woman to be there, for starters.

I don't want to be there. I like to care for people, always have. I worked as a nanny and in childcare, and then part time for a few years with SN students. It was too much rushing around, and there is not enough money in what I do to hire consistent help. That does not mean it was not worthy or important.

I really wanted to stay home and raise DS and hopefully have more children, and yes, take care of my home. I didn't assume I should or that everyone would want the same things I do. It's just what I wanted. It's still what I want, I love it.

I would be terrible in a professional job. I'm not suited to it. However I am a very, very good carer and hope to go into hospice work in the next few years or so. I assume I won't be paid well, but I also assume I will do well at it, and that I will feel good about doing it.

I would be absolutely miserable in an office setting. But I should do that, I should sacrifice my happiness and well being and sense of fulfillment for your agenda? Why ?

Yes it is a shame that I'm isolated and it makes life harder, but let me tell you Xenia, there is nowhere I'd rather be right now than at home with my babies. And the reasons I chose to be at home are quite selfish; not much to do with wanting to be an intensive Mother for their sakes. I want to squeeze every last drop out of their babyhood for my own selfish pleasure. I'm perfectly aware that they'd thrive in other settings, and that we'd have more money, holidays etc if I worked, but it is a huge blessing to have the choice not to, and I don't intend to look a gift horse. The thing that depresses me is that not many people in my area do it - not that being with my children 24-7 depresses me. It is awful that households cannot now manage on one wage. I find xenia's sneering tone regarding sahms hilarious. Sneer away, thinking that we're all doing it to force little johnny to read flashcards. It's a luxury life choice and an absolute joy for those who've chosen it.

and the point is Xenia that they're my children, so to me, my work as a SAHM has enormous value. Why would I give a flying fuck whether it's valued by society

xmasexactly. I'll not be lying on mine thinking 'if only I'd bought my own island' ;)

I just wish that Xenia would understand that only some people want to be in board rooms and have top jobs. We are all very different. There is nothing wrong in wanting different things and one isn't superior to another. I could earn lots of money being a dentist, but I don't want to spend my days poking around in people's mouths. Luckily my dentist is madly enthusiastic about it. Why not just be grateful that people want different things and that we have got intelligent people working with children and the elderly?
Very few people want the top jobs- I wouldn't even want to be married to one, nevermind do it myself, it takes over your life.
When you only get one life I want to spend it doing things that I find interesting and not earning pots of money that you can't take with you. You need enough money, but if you are not paying school fees, nor paying London house prices, only care that a car gets you from A to B and wouldn't want to buy an island under any circumstances then you don't need money as your prime motivator.
You can get off the treadmill for a few years and stay at home, if you want to- lots of women don't want to so there is no reason why they should.

I don't get this whole island thing anyway. Where I come from lots of people have islands because their great great grandparents or whoever bought 'em cheap (way up north in Minnesota).

Not the same as a luxury island in the ocean I suppose, but whenever I see "but so and so has an island " I think, meh.

exotic perhaps you're getting too hung up on the board room aspect. The fact is there are plenty of ways to earn well. All manner of interesting industries.

But women seem to gravitate to the lowest paid. As if we think that's all we're worth.

And the reality, sadly, is as mini explained. The state is going to be seriously carved back in the coming years. We are all going to become resonsible for our own lives, our own education, our own healthcare. Tax credits and pension benefits will become a thing of the past.

As this happens, the country will split into the rich and the poor. The middle will disappear (as is already happening). So given the choice, where do you want your DC to end up?