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

exotic, claig, lovechoc, your psychology 101 about Xenia is laughable.

If you turned all that carping into actual achievement in the workplace rather than pottering around smelling roses and snide remarks about high achievers, you might actually understand the message Xenia is telling your dds about taking their place in the world.

@blue Its the message they are giving to their sons I'm worried about. Those lads on R4 should have been an eye opener for some people - but apparently not. :(

I like Xenia, she is a good Financial Times reading Tory, but I think she is wrong about some things. She does tend to look down on SAHMs and women who are working in jobs that don't pay mega bucks.

I think that is wrong, and I think that is the type of view that the system promotes - a system where some people receive huge bonuses for financial dealings and others receiev prison sentences for shoplifting a bottle of water.

Agree Claig - and more importantly huge bonuses and severance packages for incompetence at best, criminality at worst, ( Bob Diamond anyone?)

It is wonderful to be a high achiever. But that means different things to different people.

Not everyone wants to make a ton of money. I don't. I mean, I'd certainly take it if I won the lottery or something :), but I'm far too happy at home to go do work I'd hate and be ill-suited for.

Oh believe me, she looks down on women who are earning megabucks too, if we are a bit common, went to state school and then send our own kids to state school too (and use the word kids of course). Especially if we don't live in London (being born there and moving away for an unspecified reason is apparently the worst sin of all, far worse than being born somewhere up north and moving there later in life). But that actually doesn't matter - she is completely right about the political issue of women in the workplace and the fact that she may say rude things that some of you think are aimed at you personally (which they almost certainly aren't) doesn't actually change that.

I have read Xenia say before that the people on benefits should "kiss the boots" of the high taxpayers. That is wrong. That is like telling us that we should thank the bankers for their "services to banking". They should thank the police, the fire service , the nurses, the doctors, the cleaners and all of society.

A group of teenaged girls are sitting in a huddle at the back of the class all slagging off a girl they don't like. A girl who isn't there.

They take it in turns to say somehting personal about her. Half the things they say they can't possibly know. But that doens't stop them.

Your teenaged daughter enters the room. Do you advise her to

a. avoid the huddle.
b. tell the huddle that their behaviour is wrong.
c. join in.

blueshoes the place I want my dd to take in the world is no different to what I wan for ds's, happiness, and health with wealth which doesn't come from a large amount of money but from taking joy on life and taking the paths they choose. Ultimately have that choice. It is through hard work and some good luck tho that enables them to have that. I don't need Xenia to guide me, I am a determined woman who is not afraid to stand up for my beliefs and I don't need to be talked at like some dim witted poor woman because I currently choose to be at home with my children and baby.

We are not slagging Xenia off. I like Xenia. But that doesn't mean that I think she is wrong on some issues.

isn't wrong

I'm not attacking Xenia personally, or her right to live her life the way she sees fit. What I take issue with is the constant refusal to believe that I, and many women like me, deserve the same respect.

And I've had many a discussion with Xenia and she can hold her own. She actually starts this thread in the hope need for disagreement. I wonder if it would be more prudent to just "smile and wave". This not feeding this pointless debate as she will not ever say "oh yes, perhaps caring wholly for my dc isn't so totally abhorrent"

Well said claig, it's a perfect example of "socialisation" and the co-opting of human nature and bending it to fit with the corporate ideal of wage slave. She want's us all to find ourselves & freedom in servitude to capitalism. She knows she defines herself only in terms of exchange values, take away the earning power and you have "just a woman" like any other.

Metabillis - 'a bit common, went to state school then send our own to state schools too' - if Xenia does look down on this then she is not really a champion of women - she is a champion of a certain kind of woman - I presume privately educated, right- wing and London based.

Metabillis your, achievements that you mentioned up thread, are to me more impressive, if you are from a non- traditional background for your sector.

@word exactly. What annoys me is, if someone disagrees with Xenia (as I did on that other thread this week) then - make your case. Argue the facts. Play the ball, not the woman. I think she is completely correct in this thread apart from I wouldn't call all SAHMs thick (or I wouldn't have done before reading this thread anyway. I still wouldn't.) I genuinely haven't seen anybody making a coherent credible argument as to why they believe she is wrong. Stating that an individual would find office work boring is actually adding nothing to the debate at all. Stating that a person could have been successful if they wanted to apart from being really funny adds nothing to the debate. There is a debate to be had but the 'other side' just aren't showing up. Which hands it to Xenia on a plate. Which might not have been what they intended......

wordfactory,we do like her.
And some of us know things that maybe you dont know.
I do for one.
But we do, one time, need to tell the teacher if the girl needs help.

Claig, I don't dispute the value of the services provided by firemen, nurses, police to society. The problem is that they are incredibly costly and all paid out of the public purse.

What do you suggest as a replacement for the likes of Xenia who pay a disproportionate amount of the tax used to support such public services for the general population (without using them by dint of their paying private school fees and using private healthcare).

I'd like to see what you propose as an alternative, which in all likelihood will mean a greatly reduced standard of living for the ones who choose the slower lane and are currently being subsidised by grafters and (mostly) men who pay the taxes. In fact, with the likes of Bob Diamond going and all that means for financial services, perhaps we will all going down that route anyway.

Sorry don't know what happened there with the commas.

Metabilis I don't feel there's a case to be made beyond "different choices work for different families and that should be respected."

Metabilis3, I'm only here as a Marxist feminist to argue against her politics, she describes herself as as "capitalist feminist" as if any such thing could possible exist. I also recent your assertion that no one here has put up a cognisant argument.

The people who are not doing the respecting are in the main SAHMs who are overwhelmingly dishonest in their narrative regarding why they have opted for that path. This just perpetuates the - well, there is no other phrase for it really - subjugation of women. Did you not LISTEN to that Radio 4 programme mentioned upthread? :(

See?

Would that fact that feeling I had no choice with ds1 but to return to the world of underwriting when he was a baby was a significant contributing factor to the severe PND I experienced. And that from the moment he was born my priorities altered completely? That as a young woman growing up I wanted to run a huge corporate business in advertising? That I wanted several MG's. I was ever gong to marry and never have dc.

That all changed, as life does and I never went back to finance, i no longer had any want or interest in it. Unsteadily went to uni and trained in nursing, I worked full time and had fertility treatment for 2nd child and went on to have 3rd. Dh is in a good job and i have a choice. I have chosen to SAH and we are all happy, and I am fulfilled. Literally, being a mum and caring for family fulfils me. I know that it is for a short time. I've starred looking into a business I can run alongside family. But I have a choice.

No having a choice with DS1 was a huge factor in my PND. Honestly.

'What do you suggest as a replacement for the likes of Xenia who pay a disproportionate amount of the tax used to support such public services for the general population (without using them by dint of their paying private school fees and using private healthcare).'

I don't know what tax Xenia pays, but I do know that some rich people were paying very little, getting loans from companies in Jersey, while benefitting from all of teh vital services paid for by ordinary people.

I suggest we close all tax loopholes like that and stop paying astronomic bonuses to traders in banks that have been rescued by the taxpayer. I think there is enough to go round, but some people at teh top are getting too large a slice of teh cake, while looking down on teh ordinary people who make the society work.

I think that a carer in an old people's home is contributing more to our society than a high flier fixing LIBOR or a rich person being paid loans out of Jersey companies in order to reduce their tax bill.