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

mama I didn't suggest that SAHMs sneer at WOHMs. If you re-read my post you'll see I was saying it is the reverse that is often alleged.

Your point that some women don't have a choice to work or not is revealing. In my experience this is the most 'acceptable' reason to give for working outside the home. It's often the one I give with my (many) SAHM friends if I am in the mood for an easy life. As I said, it's as though non-financial considerations should not be part of the mix.

metabillis and another fantastic contribution there

Pendulum - in general they probably don't. In this thread though some of them are doing little but sneer at WOHMs. Although to be fair some of the sneering is coming from people who work PT or even full time in jobs they believe are morally superior to most 'office' jobs.

Mama - apart from continued misspellings of other poster's names, and nasty snipes at the WOHMs on this thread (me, Xenia and Blue) what have you contributed, exactly? I'd be thrilled to know.

pendulum you are correct (re-read that post) and yes, I have felt sneered at by some posters here for SAH. The reason I say about choice, is that I believe if a person has a choice as to wether they SAH or WOH, then it is preferable. Now if a person chooses to WOH then it is their choice and of course there are many (non financial benefits) just as if another wished to SAH. I haven't once said WOH was wrong but neither is SAH. It's about choice.

Thanks, Pendulum. You put it better than I can.

My reference to the popular presumption that work, and more specifically, working mothers, are bad for family life, goes far beyond this thread. It is rife in the media and a easy knee-jerk reaction to the use of childcare.

No one can argue that people should be free to choose what they want, whether it be SAHM, low paid/convenient jobs or high paid careers. But where the choice is disproportionately exercised by women in favour of easy lives to SAHM or low paid jobs that fit around the family to their financial and social detriment, you wonder how 'free' that choice is and what we can do to redress the messages that women are being bombarded with that their children can only thrive if there is one parent (ideally the mother) at home.

Men have always enjoyed a balance of family and work life. There needs to be more messages out there to make sure women don't get fobbed off into thinking that it is not possible to combine a happy marriage/children and satisfying work and choose to SAHM or take minimum wage jobs as a result.

From a personal and moral standpoint, I do believe that any able bodied adult should be in paid employment - that is the starting point. IMO there is no inherent basis for women, as opposed to men, have a greater claim to a leisurely non-competitive life of domesticity, just because they have a womb and breasts, once their dcs are not ickle babies.

I of course recognise that in many cases it is uneconomic for both parents to work. But then that it why women should aim for high paying jobs that give them the flexibility to order their lives. It shouldn't always be men that lead the charmed lives.

metabillis clearly nothing of benefit to you, but I'm sure I'll cope with that.

I do find a lot of the sah comments anti woh: e.g. Not everyone is driven by money.

Which is obviously correct. But not relevant to a woh/sah unless you think woh are driven by money. And status as has also been mentioned in similar terms.

yoyo I think that was in response to xenia's post with reference to lots of money.

Right baby awake, and dh and ds2 made birthday lunch/party for me so best go.

Just quickly tho, why is it then permissible for blueshoes to seemingly sneer at the SAM role?

Happy birthday, Mama, and have a great day

Right so one poster says xyz then follows a load of negative generalisations about wohm by posters who dont have an issue with wohm? That's not convincing....

SAH not Sam

I dont think sneering adds to the debate.

' I do believe that any able bodied adult should be in paid employment'

Some people can't afford to be in paid employment due to benefits and childcare costs and some people can afford not to have to work and may choose not to. Everyone should be free to choose what they want to do, work or not.

What's best for some is not best for others.

It is doubly important and effective that if a woman does not need to work, because she married a high earning male, that she continues to strive in the world of work.

A high earning male is likely to be one that has the power to influence policies at his workplace or in politics or society. If all he sees and knows are that his wife and his contemporaries' wives are enjoying the easy life of coffee mornings, shopping, baking and gym, whilst bringing up their children, it must surely lead to the mindset that women are not capable or even entitled to compete with him in his sphere of influence. What does that mean for our dds if they want to be seen as competent and credible competitors for senior positions.

There is currently a lot of talk of positive discrimination to get more women into boardroom roles, which is step in the right direction, but we must do more to address the mindset of both women and men as well.

Polarisation of roles is never healthy for an equal relationship where one party is so clearly plugged into the external world that brings in the income and personal glory and the other's life is dependent on his earning power and sidelined into domesticity whose children and herself are getting older by the day.

As long as they can afford to support themselves, during and after the inevitable relationship breakdown which will occur for many and self fund their lengthy retirement, as we all live longer.

otherwise people who work will be funding others choices.

claig: 'Some people can't afford to be in paid employment due to benefits and childcare costs and some people can afford not to have to work and may choose not to. Everyone should be free to choose what they want to do, work or not.

What's best for some is not best for others.'

Claig, I have already answered this in the very post you quoted me: "I of course recognise that in many cases it is uneconomic for both parents to work. But then that it why women should aim for high paying jobs that give them the flexibility to order their lives. It shouldn't always be men that lead the charmed lives."

You are free to choose. But if your choice of a low paid job means you might be shooting yourself and your dds in the foot, perhaps you will allow me to point that out.

'It is doubly important and effective that if a woman does not need to work, because she married a high earning male, that she continues to strive in the world of work.'

Important for whom? She may be single, she may have inherited her wealth, she may have written a best-selling novel and may not want to work in the boardroom anymore. She may want to go back to University or art college. There is more to life than the boardroom. She may not need paid employment to enable her to do what she wants to do. She may want to retire early having made lots of money. What is important is that she does what she wants to do.

' I do believe that any able bodied adult should be in paid employment'

Don't agree, actually. There are reasons for certain members of society not working even if they are able bodied. Claig has summed it up well.

'But then that it why women should aim for high paying jobs that give them the flexibility to order their lives.'

But this is not real life. Most women and men can't get these high-paying jobs. Xenia's world of get on your bike, aim higher, don't do dross, treat the damage you do by staying at home as your carbon footprint, is not the real world. It is some 1970s aspirational self improvement seminar with a video of Norman Tebbitt saying "if you just get on your bike, everything will be alright."

Not everyone wants to do what Xenia does. I think it was April who saidshe was a wildlife researcher and doesn't earn megabucks. Vut her job is no less useful than whatever Xenia does, and may in fact be more useful to society than what Xenia does. What you earn doesn't reflect your worth. Bob Diamond earned lots and he was always in and out of teh boardroom, but I don't think that what he does has the worth of one nurse.

Claig: 'She may be single, she may have inherited her wealth, she may have written a best-selling novel and may not want to work in the boardroom anymore. She may want to go back to University or art college. There is more to life than the boardroom. She may not need paid employment to enable her to do what she wants to do. She may want to retire early having made lots of money. What is important is that she does what she wants to do.'

How many SAHMs can claim to be in any of the categories.

The overwhelming reality is that many SAHMs are dependent on their partners to bring in the income and would only have limited savings/inheritance to fund their lifestyle, much less their retirement, should their partners leave them, lose their jobs, become maimed or die.

Bob Diamond is not someone you want to aspire to though, is he? Perhaps that is why many women avoid 'boardroom' type jobs, because it's just laughable how people in these roles think they are oh so important (VIPs) who should be looked upon as gods. I have more respect for a road sweeper to be perfectly honest - at least he/she can earn an honest day's hard work!

Claig, it is in the interests of the patriarchy to tell women to aim low and to tell them they are not capable of being a Xenia.

To be honest, it is in my dcs' interests that you and your dcs (who I am sure are every bit as capable and intelligent as them, if not more) aim low so that there is less competition for them in the high paying jobs.

If you want to adopt a self-defeatist approach and make all kinds of excuses without even trying to shoot for the moon, that is in a sense your loss and my gain.

But to me it is sad on a broader level that women do this to themselves.