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

You want to be the best at being a leader,high earner,power,ambition,success,a mother,done the most childcare,the most everything.

Some of us just love 'tootling' about in the provinces -not being first or best at anything but being 'good enough'-earning enough to be comfortable and having time to stand and stare!
Xenia said somewhere that she is working until she dies. No way I am I doing that-I am going to travel, volunteer for lots of things, study, have hobbies, walk etc etc etc. Not having spent thousands of pounds on school fees I will have the money to do it.

Is this just another thread at bashing SAHMs then....haven't read the whole thread, sorry.

I didn't read the article, but I will say that I don't feel I am damaging my children by SAH. Many have been doing it for years, so does that mean most of society is damaged??

I get the impression Xenia's arguments just are not going anywhere, really. If all women chose a career (not just some low paid job) then who on earth would clean your toilets at home?????? Who would mop your floors??? You're arguments are not going anywhere!! lol

I think that it is missing the point that there are people like Xenia, and we need them,BUT they are a minority, and also a minority of men. I can see far more appeal in my DS's job where he lives near the hills-the whole office works hard all week, without much in the way of breaks and then they finish at 2pm on a Friday and disappear off mountain biking, climbing etc and don't give work a thought until Monday morning.Obviously you don't earn as much but you get a wonderful work/life balance.
The message to children is -feel free to order life as you wish-as long as you can pay bills and have something over for emergencies. If you don't want the treadmill of city, office life it is just as valid to keep a B&B in Cornwall and do some painting, write a book, keep hens etc. Be true to yourself. If you want to be at home with your DCs in their formative years, and you can afford it, do not feel that it is , in any way, 'letting the side down'. If you always want to work full time and you want to get to the top-then do it-don't feel guilty.

The great answer to Xenia's arguments would be for everyone to take them up and she would have to do all her own cleaning and look after her own children because it is all too demeaning!

i think what xenia is suggesting is: in order to change the situation where women do most of the low paid jobs and men the high paid ones, and so create a more equal society, women need to aim as high as they can.

of course not all women will want to do this or be capable, but thats no reason to discourage others from achieving their full capabilities.

1. Children from households with a high income do better on average
2. 50% of marriages end and women are often left financially vulnerable

of course the other side is if women continue to own SAHParenting, then men as missing out on all the opprtunties that the SAHM champion. surely that cannot be right or fair either?

Now,I can agree with the whole of that Tilly

We need people at the bottom to do the boring jobs such as cleaning toilets or looking after children otherwise Xenia wouldn't be used to her current lifestyle as it is. Life would take on a whole new meaning then where women like Xenia would have to get on scrubbing that loo and wiping children's bottoms, etc. How the other half live...

Many who are rich give away their money to the less fortunate, because they soon realise that money doesn't bring you happiness when you spend it all on yourself and your family. There's more to life than a fancy car or a mansion.

Edacltly YY As long as women are the losers and men win we never get anywhere as a sex. Yes we need cleaners but let it not be your daughters. Let us enable women to succeed and do well.

Of course I am not saying no one will clean. There is a pecking order. The average IQ is 100. People are often also fairly lazy or not very good at things so they will end up doing the dross cleaning or as housewives. Look at the security at the Olympics? They are not sure the people booked will turn up for work. I often sayto my children just being 100% eliable is enough to get you ahead. We never let people down. We stuggle on however sick. If you are utterly reliable you can be easily ahead of hte pack. Most people are hopeless. ALl of us will have waited in for a workmen who didn't turn up (well not me as I delegate it but most people).

Rich women do heaps more good and more for charity than poor women.

We can never beat men.They are more physically strong than us,as a whole.
They have more stamina than us,as a whole.
The only way you can "beat" them,not that I personally want to,is by living longer.We get about 5 more years than them?,tucked on to the end of our lives.
You see,I can probably see this a whole lot clearer than you,because there is such an obvious difference between my DH and myself.
And indeed, the men in the area I live in.
I can understand that as you are so strong and capable,and your DH did not do manual work,that the differences are not so obvious.
You have said many times before where you live,and you can correct me if I am wrong,but I'm guessing the men in your area,on the whole,do desk jobs.
Xenia,you are not a loser.You brought up your children lovingly.For that alone,you are not a loser.

@amillion I think you might find, if you looked, that as society currently operates it's not about physical strength or stamina, it's about mental strength and stamina, intelligence, flexibility, originality....all qualities that are not gender specific. I 'beat' men all the time. I earn more than most of them. I have a very senior position in my firm. I was recently elected to sit on a committee in a competitive election where all the other candidates were men. I beat them. The fact that I'm 5'2" and wee was completely irrelevant - the important thing was that I'm great at what I do.

"sit on a committee" is what I am talking about.
yes,women can "beat" men there.
But globally,and even UK plc,there are hundreds of different occupations where men will always "beat" women.

Just realised,Metabilis3,that I should have congratulated you on your achievement.Well done for getting elected.

@amillion and I beat men when getting my job. Most of the people who are less senior than me in the firm are men. I earn more than most people (and by most I mean...really most. Not 50%. ) I work in a traditionally male profession. The thing I was talking about, which you were rather condescending about, based on no knowledge (obviously, because I don't want to out myself) isn't just some tiny irrelevant thing. It's not even within my firm or even UK only - it's an international thing. Within my profession (not to the man in the street) it's a big deal. And I really don't need you to tell me about 'globally'. My role in my own firm is global. I do a lot of international travel.
There are occupations where men have a physiological advantage, sure. But there's not many of them.

Your lsat sentence,I'm going to have to agree to differ again.
I could provide an enormous list,not sure I can be bothered tbh.

Women have by far the better skills needed today than men which is why they are doing better (until silly ones leave to have babies) in so many areas. It is the verbal skills, hard work, ability to tink around subjects which do women so well and why men are increasingly falling behind. Thankfully most women know men are not "better". We use machines to dig coal. The brain rules and women's can be particularly good unless they bury themselves at home baking cakes.

Of course you could provide a big long list. Builder. Roustabout. Miner. Steelworker. But of all the jobs requiring physical strength that women could never match, (and that's not all the manual jobs, many manual jobs require dexterity as much as strength, e.g. plumbing, electrician, carpet laying - the list is endless) the only one that actually pays decently AFAICT is rig work. Which pays a fortune because it is dangerous but is hardly what you would call a 'top job'. I don't personally think it matters to the cause of women in the workplace if we never get parity on rigs (although I do know a couple of very clever and skilled women who do work on rigs but they aren't doing manual stuff, they are doing the brainy stuff).

i have been a sheet metal worker. better than the men. tougher and faster.

I'd like to see women working down the pits... There was a reason men did that job, as women would not have the stamina for it. There are some things in life women just aren't cut out for. There's no need to make out women can do it all.

'baking cakes' indeed LOL

Thing is lovechoc nobody here is saying that women could or should or would want to go down the pit. Even if there was a pit to go down any more. We should be aiming to beat the men for the good jobs not the shit ones. There's a reason why the market attaches a premium to 'brain work'. Because not everyone can do it, and because the brightest men engineered it so that their skills would be valued the most many many decades (centuries even) ago. But there is actually very little difference between the brainwork skills of a man or a woman. We can do that stuff just as well as they can. It's ridiculous to suggest we can't. Sure, specific individuals might not be able to do that sort of stuff but as an entire gender, there is no material difference between what they bring to the table and what we do.

I'd rather not do a desk job, even if it's well paid, it just strikes me as being rather boring. I'd rather be out and about doing a job where I'm actively doing something, talking to people (i.e. not sitting at a desk). I am sure many women are like myself, it's not that strange. Even women who do have the intelligence to do desk jobs, choose not to. I remember meeting a bank manager about five years ago who was at an induction to become a healthcare assistant. She just did not want to return to a desk job ever again. Too stressful for a start, amongst other reasons for quitting her high flying well paid job.

My point is not everyone is interested in aiming high. It would be a boring world if we all aimed at being rich!

And the thing about the former bank manager was that she had no regrets about her new life with less money(!!!!), she was much happier in her new role as a healthcare assistant. The joy of helping others meant more to her than the amount of money she was earning.