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

But most people in senior roles are not bob diamond. And why is bob diamond relevant to encouraging women to aspire to well paying jobs? unless someone wants women to stay in their place.

'The overwhelming reality is that many SAHMs are dependent on their partners to bring in the income'

I agree wth you. But you said every able bodied person should be in paid employment. I disagree with that. I think that every person should do whatever they want to do and what they think is best for them and their family. I don't think anybody should tell them what is best for them. That is some kind of New Labour prescriptive society where the planners know what is best for you.

I am surprised that Xenia, as a good Tory, doesn't respect the wishes of women to do whatever they want to do, and I am also surprised that she has fallen for teh prescriptive carbon footprint nonsense and believes that women are doing "harm" by not choosing to work and that they should pay "carbon credits" to compensate for this "harm".

Claig I see plenty in Tory policy that tells people what they should do and what is morally best for them. It always seems to me to be a case of "do what you like as long it is the same as we right-thinking folk (no pun intended)"

'And why is bob diamond relevant to encouraging women to aspire to well paying jobs? '

No one is against encouraging women to aspire, but Xenia looks down on women who are SAHM and looks down on women in low-paying jobs. She believes in a social Darwinism, where teh high fliers are in some way superior and that others should "kiss their feet" in thanks for teh increased taxes that they pay.

That is disprespectful to women, under teh pretence of wanting them to aspire.

It is very close to bragging and snobbishness. It is supercilious and condescending. and as fivemadthings excellent posts said, it shows contempt.

'Claig I see plenty in Tory policy that tells people what they should do and what is morally best for them'

You're right and that is wrong too.

Claig, what I said was: "From a personal and moral standpoint, I do believe that any able bodied adult should be in paid employment - that is the starting point."

You left the last bit out. I recognise that in a small exception of cases, there are legitimate reasons why a person would not need to work, such as independent wealth.

' I recognise that in a small exception of cases, there are legitimate reasons why a person would not need to work, such as independent wealth.'

But , blueshoes, it is not for you or Xenia or the government or the carbon footprinters to decide what women should do.

The legitimate reason is not due to independent wealth, the legitimate reason is because that is what the woman wants to do. That is sufiicent in and of itself, and no one else should be able to prevent or look down on a woman doing whatever she wants to do.

Everyone is different and that should be respected.

Claig, if you are a high earner you are generally total you avoid tax, should pay more, are selfish and greedy when actually the top 10% of earners pay 40% of the personal tax. ItS quite refreshing to hear a hyperbolic 'we are doing gods' work.

Lots of sahm make anti high earning comments which in this context I think are about keeping woman down not choice.

I love my housewife offset idea. Hope it takes off. I suppose it's a kind of traditional penance but the doing good rather than suffering for the sake of it penance. The more years you don't work and help the cause of women then harder you have to work in supporting working mothers, ensuring your husband is the one who scrubs the loo, go into schools encouraging girls to work etc etc.
We could set up a scheme - work out the damage done by housewives to family income (if the woman is bright and sensible enough to earn more than minimum wage were she to work), example set to daughter (women serve men for nothing and men keep women) etc

Reading Sunday Telegraph article about parents who never put their child physically down etc which is perhaps the ultimate intensive parenting. Addison Lee (London taxi firm) are also in today's papers for allowing workers including in the call centre to bring a baby to work with them (am in airport lounge). Mind you I am rather unintensively on my own in here with children elsewhere in the air port. On the other hand they had the option to come in here instead of shopping and I have everyone's bags.

"Everyone is different and that should be respected."

In principle, yes.

But from a political and societal standpoint, I will continue to point out that your choices have a cost and will perpetuate the lowly way in which women are perceived in the workplace and does nothing to advance women's position in society or the value of her domestic contribution.

My last post was to claig

I find Xenia's analysis frustrating because it always denies the economic and social realities in which most women operate when trying to achieve these top jobs.

For example Xenia's beloved, revered private education: it is true that this sort of education acts as gatekeeper to the 'top jobs' and those who choose to buy this advantage for their children are not interested in dismantling it, evidence of this can be seen in private schools reluctance to form bonds with local state schools 'as parents won't like it.'

Xenia's views on private education are thus contradictory to her moral imperative tk get women into the boardroom - how do you get children whose patents cannot afford North Collegiate into the boardroom?

Or do we accept that we have lower IQs and that we deserve to struggle? And us that feminist?

'The more years you don't work and help the cause of women'

But do you think that by earning a high salary that you are helping the cause of women more than a feminist thinker who may be unemployed or may write books that don't earn much money or a low-paid worker in a women's refuge or someone working in a care home or a citizen's advice bureau or someone volunteering for free?

'I love my housewife offset idea. Hope it takes off. I suppose it's a kind of traditional penance but the doing good rather than suffering for the sake of it penance. The more years you don't work and help the cause of women then harder you have to work in supporting working mothers'

This is similar to teh thinking that anyone not working is a scrounger or a shirker, that the unemployed are idle or feckless, that housewives or househusbands are lazy and idle and that all these people should do some kind of "penance".

It was sad to see Cameron use the phrase "we're with the workers not the shirkers" to Miliband in PMQ. Not everyone who is not working is a shirker, and I don't think they should do "penance".

Claig, all those examples you gave are noble work and they are very important in their own way, but we have had all that and these people are not the movers and shakers in society.

The reality is that Xenia, Metabilis who make their mark and the many women who take up their place in higher paid professional, managerial and entrepreneurial positions who do not opt out will do far more to get the attention of those that make the rules and eventually (hopefully) turn the tide.

Aboutlastnight, it is true about a private education being the key to a high paying job but now more than ever, there is a drive in the leading universities to take on more people from state schools. Even in the City bastion where I work, to recruit people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Mind you, the non-private school candidate will still have to be bright, ferociously so. But slowly the thinking is coming round to more diversity and making allowances for background. These are all positive things.

But Xenia wants SAHMs to do "penance", to treat the "harm" they do in not working as their "carbon footprint". I don't know how much Xenia will really help millions of ordinary women.

The thing is (and I have not read all of the 35 pages) but I can sort of see what Xenia is (brutally and un-diplolomatically) pointing out, and I don't think that this study is a reason to have the (yawn) SAH/ WOH debate.

On a personal level almost no women really care what other women do about work/childcare.

However, on a national level, the very fact that we are STILL agonising over the subject of women working versus children, and the fact that men are still, largely, running things, shows us that things are not OK, and should be challenged.

This does not mean that we all have to become CEO's, or (God forbid) lawyers.
Just that maybe the accepted path of women's options and financial werewithal being massively compromised because they stay at home for years, or leave good jobs in order to take "mum" jobs with short hours is not doing us any good in the long run.

It has somewhat stunned me just how difficult it is to have a well paid career without working 12 hours a day, how expensive childcare is, and how women are seemingly expected to just shelve their dreams and ambitions because they must always put the children first.

In fact, there is a trend towards Intensive Mothering (not Parenting-call it was it is) and I do think this puts untold pressure on women.

If you make the decision to stay home and devote yourself to being "the best mum you can be" it is putting a lot of pressure on yourself.

I really don't think that this is about women judging other women (although a friend did say to me recently that women with babies working full time were not raising their own children. Funnily enough she does not think her husband is not raising his own children, and he works full time...)

I think it is about MEN and the fact that they have continued to be able to have families and careers, with no judgement, no angst.
They just expect it, and maybe what we should be doing is expecting the same.
I don't care if Susan next door wants to stay home and not work. I just want it to be an actual choice, not a half choice because, well, Susans husband earns more , and childcare is so expensive, and hubby wont be able to leave work early 3 days a week to pick the kids up etc etc

There are still all these debates in the media about "can women have it all "(the answer is always NO btw!).
We won't have actual equality until the media is asking:
"Can Men have it all"
"Can men juggle work AND childcare?"
"Does being a working Dad impact of a child's wellbeing?"

Anyone EVER heard the term "working dad?"
No, me neither.

Men must be laughing their asses off. Here we are ripping each other to shreds, while the men in grey suits, the ones who actually make our decisions, carry on as usual getting everything they want.

I just think the point of this study is to maybe think, OK, maybe I don't have to be the perfect mother, maybe there should be other avenues open to me if I want them.

The offset is because the housewife damages other women's chances so she needs to do some feminist work to make up for the detriment she causes when she is yet another woman an employer has spent money on who just when they get any good ditches work for babies and will never get back on track.

This is a feminist issue, not a class issue. There is no need to affect it by clas. The City is full of easte end and Essex boys and girls made good. You (all of us) are only as good as your last deal. No matter who your father is if your surgeon repeatedly messes up her operations she won't keep her job so although there are certainly issues to talk about on class I don't think lumping class/left-right wing politics into feminism is particularly helpful.
Many women accept low paid work and do not strive high enough and live off male earnings. That is the iniquity to be reversed, the fact that so many mothers on here earn nothing or pin money.

Look at what you can off set today. Have a daily off set challenge. Eg housewife could buy a book for her 4 year old daughters as we did from a feminist book club which shows a man at home and women at work or give her daughter some examples of high earning women you know and see how happy they are and what nice lives they lead.

A lot of people I know have become the partner who stays at home or goes part time when they go back to work after children because their husband earns a lot more, and did before the first child came along. This is couples who were in the same school/university year (generally they met at university as well and in some cases on the same course, so generally should be on a par in terms of earning potential).

I am lucky enough to earn the same amount annually, give or take a few hundred quid, than my DH, so we will be sharing parental leave when our LO comes along in September.

What I don't understand is how our situation seems to be unique among my friends - how is it that men BEFORE children come along are earning significantly more than their same age, equally educated partners? Straight sexism (men getting promoted quicker beyond women with equal qualifications) or women not pushing themselves, perhaps in anticipation of DC or perhaps through being less proactive about their careers more generally?

I don't think lumping class/left-right wing politics into feminism is particularly helpful.

Wonder what the average cleaner/shop assistant/nursery nurse thinks about this?

@yoyoits not just about keeping women down its about the SAHs being jealous and insecure and feeling inferior (note the number of people who post that they could do if they wanted ) Or, note Lovechoc's recent post about respecting road sweepers more than people with 'top jobs' (as if she even knew what she meant by that) because at least roads sweepers do an honest day's work. It's such a shame when posters 'prove' Xenia's point for her because I know there are lots of intelligent SAHMs out there.

Brilliant post, Nowthenwreck. I agree with everything you said.

Perfectionism is a particular affliction of high achieving girls. If they think that parenting can only be done right if done intensively ie with them SAH, then once they have children, we lose them to domesticity.

That is why it is necessary to counter all the misconceptions that a child can only thrive if one parent is full time at home. People should just strive to be a good enough parent and a good enough worker and be guilt-free along the way.

It is social conditioning and media messages that lead women (and men) to believe that a child should ideally only have one consistent caregiver which is a parent. Our children are unbelievably privileged and resilient as it is. The fact that they had 3-4 as opposed to 1-2 persons in their day-to-day lives is hardly going to scar them.

In the country I grew up in, there is much less talk of attachment parenting (which seems to be a particular UK obsession) and childcare is relatively affordable and available, it is the norm for women to go back to ft time and their representation at board level is not the appalling levels you see in the UK. The state schools there are one of the highest performing in the world.

Which is why I believe that women can do both if they relaxed their standards, with no detriment to their dcs.

@about Private education does not have to act as a 'gatekeeper' to the 'top jobs'. I know many senior people in my profession who did not have a private education (me included). We are not the majority true so obviously all is not well in the state of Denmark but still, we aren't non-existent either.

In fact I'm fairly sure Xenia didn't go to private school either.

I know several privately school SAHMs.

SAHMs are happiest.There,I've said it.
Now flame flame flame