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

Xenia, "they have chosen a path which damages women and their daughters for their own indulgence."
I am somewhat of a maths person ,so I will try and explain in Maths language.
I think you vastly underestimate something.
Yes,woman A chooses to stay at home,and you say "damages women and their daughters".
But then woman B comes along,and she chooses to stay at home too.
And so does woman C,and D,and E and so on.
It may only be that when you come to woman J,that her path may indeed be slightly damaged,and that is debateable.She may be fine.
Then along comes woman K,L,M,N,you get the picture.
And again, it is only until you get to woman X,that,for sake of argument,her path is damaged.
The numbers are very small indeed.And it could be argued,as many have done on here,that the vast majority of us are happy.And if the worst comes to the worst,we women are adaptable and capable.

wordfactory,my argument is that,and we will take me as an example.Though I am not a perfect example,as although really a SAHM,we do run a business from home.
But being a SAHM,has meant that I have had more spare time than most,even though I too have lots of children.
Because of the spare time,I have helped the kids enormously,many hours spent researching their career paths,talking to them about what they want to do,how they intend to get there,looking up various qualification expectations,helping with applications etc.Some of which I am pretty sure I would not have been able to do were I personally anyway, a WOHM.
Which surely all adds to "helping to make them rich",should they want it.

I think time and support do count for a lot. Though, I'm sure WOHPs do this too, where they can. xenia has often talked about accompanying her DC in their music practice which I'm sure helped them hugely.

That said, I do think there are certain advantages that simply cost money. Sad but true.

But SAHM do that too as regard music.
All my children have numerous music exams to their name.I myself play the piano,and I was here when all the lessons were going on,so could earwig on the teacher,and how the children were getting on.
I agree that more and more money can bring extra advantages.For example,my children do not have the best connections in the world,and when it comes to PHds for example,some have to be self funded.
But the plus sides,are probably more time and parents who can drop things at the drop of a hat.

It's a balance.
There are some things money cannot buy.
And there are some things that no amount of time can provide.

Probably the best bet to try to give our DCs a fair whack of both time and hard cash.

The point is that you do not have to be a SAHM for your kids to have 'numerous music exams to their name' and in fact earwigging on lessons and micro managing practice is counterproductive if you want them to be any good rather than just wanting to tick off some points on some macho mothering checklist. My kids also have numerous music exams to their name (one, who has 4 instruments, has more than 20 exam certificates at age 14. The 8 year old has 5 already, plus 3 dancing ones). This comparison of achievements is just posturing - you do not need to be a SAHM for your kids to have accomplishments. It's not the most damaging fallacy promoted by some people, obviously (ultimately, who cares) but it's one of many and they add up to a critical mass of disinformation aimed at guilting women into staying in their place. SAHMs should not contribute to that. If you want to SAHM that's great. Hooray. Don't paint it as something that it isn't.

Metabilis3,,I would agree to differ that it is counterproductive.

And I only said what I said,in response to what was said about Xenia.

And a womens place isnt necessarily in the home.A womens place is where she feels is the best place for her with her own individual circumstances.

And women have control over whether they feel guilty.If you are content in your own skin,all the people in the world "guilting you",will not mean you feel guilty.

It most certainly is counterproductive if you want anything other than the checklist tick. When will people realise that they can't live vicariously through their kids and they can't live their kids' lives for them. :(

I certainly don't feel guilty. I do feel bored of explaining to men why I shouldn't feel guilty though. Very bored.

Metabilis 3,I dont,and I dont.All my kids have left home to work,and even abroad.They come back from time to time.They are very confident.
But they know we are at the end of a phone day and night if needs be.

And good that you dont feel guilty.I can understand that you would feel very bored if men keep bringing the subject up.
I would be tempted,for 1 day only,to wear something round my neck about it all,to get the message across once and for all,and that they would then feel embarassed to bring up the subject again.

@going that's an incredibly sexist post. How can you say most men do not have the gifts of caring or nurturing? Wtaf?

I leave your comments about Armani to one side. Because, honestly, I don't know anyone earning £100k who wears Armani to work let alone £60 k. There are way better things on which to spend your money.

Metabilis3 - i agree with you.

Well said Crackers.

I think it was Adrienne Rich who said there was a difference between mothering as experienced by women and the institution of motherhood. She said that under patriarchy women had been socialised to believe that only a mother was a real women and only a woman could be a mother (ie care and nurture) The thing is men have sought for far too long to control the one thing we have power over, childbearing. They create treatments, they concoct science and research, they make you believe you can work until you are 45 and then they will sell you your lost fertility at a price.

The thing is, when women make active, political choices about what they want, when women reclaim mothering as something natural, innate and powerful, something that we not only do but do well, we know that we are in all ways except economically equal to men.

mini - how is mothering different than fathering?

Ask yourselves -- 'what have I done this week to ensure women progress?'

I have congratulated DD3 for getting into the honours maths group, a feat she accomplished because I taught her algebra last year and paid for a tutor for an extra boost. And because I wouldn't take no for an answer from her.

I have taught DD4 the basics of pre algebra and brushed up her arithmetic to the level of fluency (more than a week's worth of struggle, granted).
I had to take the maths into my own hands because the salaried, female maths teacher is worse than worthless.

I waved DD1 off to her first post university job after she graduated with honours -- we went shopping for clothes and shoes that will project an image that will make a good first impression. She will be earning 1.5 times what exH earned when he first qualified as a lawyer, and only a little shy of what he is making now.

I taught DD2 to iron her own clothes for her summer job clerking in a law office, where I hope she will learn enough about the practice of law and the culture of the average law firm to put her off law as a career option.

I also taught DS to do his ironing for the summer clerking job he is holding down in another law office. If he comes to the same conclusion about law that DD2 seems to be coming to, then I think I will have done the world a favour, not just women.

So ask yourselves - what have I done this week to ensure women progress?

Perhaps you would like to list what you have done this week, Xenia, other than lecture those who are quite happy in their choices.

If I was doing anything to ensure women's progress I would tell them on no account to settle down with a man when they are barely out of university and I would tell them definitely not to have children until 28yrs at the very earliest.
The same as I would tell my DSs.
Other than that I would tell them to go for a career that they find so interesting that they would want to do it as a volunteer-whether it be a surgeon, sailing instructor, gardener, dressmaker, accountant, journalist etc.
I would tell them that feminism meant choice and not being bullied into someone else's view of what they should be doing.

fathering, what is it, my honest opinion is that it is superflous. Women have always given birth and nurtured children, there is absolutely no other way of procreating the species.

Patriarchy came about because of man's discovery of surplus value and private property, his desire to control women came about because he desired to know that his progeny was his and he could pass on his property to his sons.

Men have sought ever after to control women's reproductive capacities and their "mothering" role, whether it be through enslavement to him in performing sexual services and childcare or as cheap labour into the capitalist machine. The capitalist cares not whether you mother your children full time or no time, only that you produce, reproduce and consume. In recent years there has been a dangerous shift whereby we are told "father's have rights" just look at the F4J nuts, to get an idea of their twisted morality. If you take this cult of fatherhood too far we will end up with women being forced to continue with pregnancies they do not desire, because the father and the unborn child have more rights than the mother. The child has a right to expect a relationship with any adult to which it has developed a strong bond over a long period where that adult has parented the child. It is perfectly possible for two women to parent a child! or a mother and a grandmother.

I just married DH because I loved him and wanted to grow old with him-we had DCs because we wanted them and have loved bringing them up and expect to continue enjoying it. I really can't match it up with all the talk of control and cheap labour etc-not with the perfectly nice men that I know. It is a shame that half the children who come into the world are seen as 'the enemy' through no fault of their own-they just happen to be male.

My father was not 'superfluous' -he was just as important as my mother.

I certainl think housewives need to think of their feminism like their carbon footprint. If you stay home as a housewife you need to "buy" extra feminist credits by promoting working women, ensuring your daughters are as likely as ons to work, tell them how bored many women are at home, see if they are checking to marry a man who might stay home if the wife wants it etc etc. That way you can balance out the damage done by staying at home.

I am not quite sure why we keep coming back to music practice. I like playing and singing so I accompany the children when I can grab one.
There was a very sexist post above which someone else mentioned which seemed to suggest women do not bring up their chidlren if they go to work, which is certainly not so and indeed working fathers bring up children too. In fact working parents tend to be better at it.

There is huge sexism in going's post. You are "being a woman" by not working and staying at home? Aren't working mothers being a woman? Isn't a man being a man when he holds a crying baby for 2 hours (as many men do)? Why be sexist about it? Most women work and prefer to work. They don't lose their sex by doing so. Being a woman can be as much about power, money, beating other, ambition and success which is huge fun too and that is also being a woman. Real women are much leaders and high earners as baby machines. Real women in fact do it all and those not up to it don't, same with men.

Anyway it will be interesting to see how the social mobility issues play out. We have much more than many countries. One reasons the Indian adapted to the Raj was because our then class culture was undertood because they have their own caste system. However there is more social mobility than UK 1910, that's for sure, nowadays. I think we had a period when inheritance tax was massive and large estates folded (the Russian revolution, communism etc 1914 set all this off), then the Acts of parliament during/after WWII, NHS, education act etc - that enabled mmy father to do medicine. His first degree wasn't that as his father could only afford to pay for his older brother to read medicine. Then we got grants in the 40s so he could. Both my parents went to state grammar schools and were fairly bright. I am not sure the current system is any worse. You pay nothing to go to university, not a penny this year. If you ever earn over £20k or something then you pay your loan back at 9% of salary, I thinnk that's the system. That applies to everyone (unless they, like mine, are lucky to have a mother who made wise career choices which means the teenager doesn't pay fees but that is fairly rare). University applications from UK 18 year olds are only down 5% this year and plenty of people going should never have done so that's all to the good. If you are poor under the new scheme you even get cash grants you never have to pay back. Is that really any worse than the late 1940s?

Sigh.

Working parents do not "tend to be better at it." Good parents , whether they work or stay home, tend to be better at it.

Xenia,I do believe I finally get where you are coming from personally.
You want to be the best at being a leader,high earner,power,ambition,success,a mother,done the most childcare,the most everything.
It is not possible for anybody on earth,man or woman.

That way you can balance out the damage done by staying at home.

This immediately runs into difficulties-I don't accept that I am doing any damage by staying at home.

Of course 'real' women can want power etc the same as 'real' men. You can also be a 'real' man or 'real' woman by not wanting power.
There was a man on breakfast TV who was a professional mountaineer-I bet he didn't earn much but he was living life the perfect way for him-I can't see why it would be better for him to be in a city, working long hours for a huge salary.