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

Those of you who think that individual choice is the most important thing, I have a question.

It seems to me that if a woman wants to leave work to become an SAHM, there is nothing (apart from financial considerations) to stand in her way. She may meet some challenges on threads like this, but in RL nobody is likely to intervene in that choice.

However, a woman deciding to work will often face obstacles to exercising that choice.

For example: at one interview, the two (male) interviewers had written my age (35) plus an exclamation mark at the top of my CV. I could see straight away that I was going to have to discuss the matter of my children (i.e. I had already had them and did not require any more mat leaves) during the interview.

For example: I have had male colleagues ask me who is putting my children to bed while on a business trip. I have had them opine about female directors that 'they must have had their maternal instinct removed'. I have been taken aside and asked whether I am up to a large project given my other commitments. I have ploughed on regardless but have seen many women leave.

What can be done by all women to ensure that all choices are equally valid and accessible?

Now that is a good question Pendulum,and if that was regularly talked about in that way,that to my mind is a core and valid issue.

But for those who are WOHM to expect the rest of us with pinnys on [joke] to rush to the boardroom is ludicrous.
What SAHM can do is have compassion and listen.

'What can be done by all women to ensure that all choices are equally valid and accessible?'

I don't think that is ever possible. It is because it is about money. If you need a job and want someone to pay you, then you will be asked questions, you will have to have an interview. If you need benefits, you will be asked questions. But if you are financially independent, then you can do what you like and nobody will ask you any questions, because no one will be paying you.

These days, because I can, whenever some idiot asks me questions like that I point out why they are unacceptable questions. Mostly, the people asking those questions aren't bad, they don't even want to keep women down, they have just been so socially conditioned that to them those are relevant or interesting questions. And I don't actually have a problem discussing how DH and I organize things once I've made the point about the sexism of the question. I know of at least two male colleagues with similar aged kids who have changed their working patterns as a direct result of observing what works for me over the years (I've been in this job for 5 years). And as a general thing it's much more common now for me to be talking about child issues as well as footy or geek stuff with my colleagues. Are we recruiting or promoting more women? Difficult to say. But on balance - yes, but they aren't getting to the top yet. So that still needs work.

Claig, that's certainly one part of it. But another very important point is that mothers applying for FT or "top" jobs (whatever that means) are up against certain presumptions about what mothers can, or want to, contribute to the workplace. See the example of those lads on Radio 4 that I cited about a million posts ago. They think that mothers should stay at home because 'that's what has always happened'. They will grow up to be the men who interviewed me.

Now I'm not sure I would go as far as other posters on this thread, saying that all women have a duty to put themselves in the workplace to overturn that presumption. But I do think that there needs to be a real effort made to present other people's choices as valid and worthy. Our DC should not be told that one way is the 'right' or 'best' just because that validates the choices that we prefer as mothers.

funchum8am
"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 thought there was research showing that there was a penalty in pay for being female and then an additional penalty if these women then became mothers even if they took minimal maternity leave. I think part of the mother penalty is assumptions employers can make rather than the mother being less ambitious. Obviously individuals can and do buck they trend.

I once worked for a company were discussing pay rates was a stackable offense but being young graduates will still gossiped away from the office.

I had actually done well in the pay stakes - but mostly the females had been offered and taken lower pay rates than the men. I probably shouldn't have been surprised to then discover my training was blocked by a jerk on my project on as basis that other few female graduates got trained then left very soon afterwards. I found a way round that eventually then followed my predecessors example and left for a better paid job with company with more experience of female employee in this role.

One of my DDs works in a almost total male industry.She intends that,if she has children,to carry on working.I asked her what is the man going to do childcare wise and housework wise.She said 50:50.
Now that to me,is one of the elephants in the room.
Will he? He might.
But he may work away from home,he may say yes before they have children,but somewhat change his mind afterwards.He may well outearn her.
At the moment she has it all worked out,but life does not usually work out as planned.

amillionyears does your DD already have a partner? Because the answers to your questions are largely dependent on picking the right man in my view.

Another key factor is not unwittingly setting up a working pattern after children that sabotages the woman's attempts to get back to work. Among my friends I have seen many cases of the following:

• woman takes off a couple of years after DC, or has multiple mat leaves in quick succession
• man ramps up his career during this period, both discharging responsibility as sole earner and taking advantage of having 'home' taken care of to focus on career
• by time woman want to go back, man is in highly responsible, high earning position and unused to being flexible. Won't consider asking to leave on time to do pick ups, to work PT etc. His salary pays for the big family house they moved into so can't be compromised.
• woman decides to SAH or takes very PT job that doesn't pay much/ interest her much but enables her still to run the house and do all school pick ups/ drop offs.

Some of them are quite happy with this. Others, not so.

Xenia.
I want to do a personal plea.
I do not think you mean to put down people,and maybe dont realise you do,but your internal thoughts come across in some of your posts.
I would like to ask you,when you write,to take a second look at the words you use when describing SAHMs and the work that they do.
Thank you

No she does not currently have a partner.But that is partly why i am on here,trying to work out the current day working conditions.
So all hypothetical so far.
I hadnt thought of a situation where a man may ramp up his career while woman on maternity leave.
I would hope that daughter and hypothetical man wouldnt tie themselves to a large house,but who knows.
I do think ,in these more uncertain times,and shorter contracts for young people entering the work force,that the housing situation in UK is entering a different phase from that of the past 20 or 30 years.

amillionyears I hope that some of the more polarised views on here do not make you anxious for your daughter. I have had a fantastic career so far that has given me much enjoyment, stimulation and has also provided the main salary in our house. I have also had two longish (9 month) maternity leaves and have a great relationship with my DCs. I know the details of their lives intimately and have been able to attend the nativity, sports day etc. This isn't because I'm some kind of Superwoman, it's because I have a partner who shares my view of how our family should work and together we have always made decisions based on that set of values - e.g. we split pick ups and drop offs equally, we took turns to work PT in the past when the children were small.

There's no need for anyone to have to choose between being Bob Diamond and an SAHM. There is plenty in between for those who want to continue to pursue a career.

Thanks for that,Pendulum.

I think that Xenia knows exactly what she is saying-it was her intention at the start.

"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."

Apologies for the misunderstanding. What I meant was in relation to Bob Diamond and others like him, it's hard to have respect for those in top jobs as he and others like him are not exactly setting the standard and giving a good impression for the whole world to see. Unlike some others on this forum, I have respect for people with low status jobs (they tend to have much value IMO) as well as others in high status jobs, and in between. I don't put the emphasis on financial gain, but on happiness of others.

If someone wants to work in a supermarket, why not? What's wrong with that? I have nothing against those who are happy to work in this setting. Someone has to! Who cares about the amount of money you earn? As long as you're happy with life that's all that matters. Being stressed out and trying to juggle it all doesn't work for every man/woman.

Please don't be patronising, not all SAHMs are uneducated.

I have a suggestion for Xenia-that I think would be of far more use-instead of lecturing intelligent women who have had babies later in life and want to enjoy it-why not go into a few local schools and give motivating talks to girls?
I'm sure that you could find a few Heads who would welcome it and it would be very positive. Concentrate on the sort of schools that have girls who are not traditionally going to achieve and catch them early.

I respect Xenia and life choices, she does seem clued up in many ways, but perhaps lacks empathy towards others in our society. It can be difficult not to take offence to her remarks on SAHMing, but she has her opinion and is entitled to it like anyone else. It is surely fair to say that she's a bit of an lone island though? Not many people are in a fortunate enough position to reach for the moon and stars. It's nice to see people achieve their dreams, but not everyone feels this way in life. If we were all the same it would be a very boring and dull place to be!

And Xenia wouldn't get a nanny and a cleaner!

I understood fully what you meant. And I note you haven't apologized for implying that those of us who aren't roadsweepers aren't doing an honest job. obviously this doesn't surprise me. It also doesn't surprise me that having found another spade you dig yourself a bit deeper. More allegations that people don't respect those in other jobs (where the only disrespect has come from you and your little Greek chorus), that Some of us only think about financial gain, and then a bit of approved patriarchy narrative about WOHMs who don't remember their station being stressed out jugglers.

I have been a SAHM and I think that I have offset my carbon footprint (if I thought I had one, which I don't) by being a Beaver leader for 4 years and giving 20 boys a Scouting experience that they wouldn't have got without me-there was no one else willing. I was also treasurer of the preschool, again something that was in a terrific mess and no one would take on-later to be chair and the group would have closed down if I hadn't. There are other things in the community that I have done- and simply couldn't with a full time job. I have hardly been damaging- on the contrary -a force for good.
My suggestion of going into schools as a role model is a serious one for Xenia-something that she could make a difference with.

Back2Two and exoticfruits makes some really good points.

I think it was Freud who talked about love and work being the cornerstones of human existence and I think he was probably right.

The difficulty is, work is different things to different people, and if 'love' in this context represents relationships, children and family life then how we balance the equation is going to be very different for each individual.

When Freud talked about work I presume he was talking about any occupation that gives satisfaction. Of course we know many people don't have the choice of a career, or if they do, they may not want a high pressure job and gain much satisfaction from a more vocational occupation. For others financial obligations are the prime motivater - in this case work is something that is done to facilitate their 'real lives' outside work. These jobs, to some, would be considered 'dull', 'dross' and low status and for those who agree with Xenia, not furthering the feminist cause if undertaken by women, but for many they perform the function of financing their 'real lives' and are simply seen as a means to an end. For this group fulfilment is found in other areas of their lives including hobbies and interests.

Returning to the OP - I could only see a child being damaged if the mother felt she had no choice in regard to being at home and had no other area of interest other than her children. For many being at home for a chunk of their lives is just part of the 'love' side of the equation and at some point it will be balanced again with 'work' in whatever form that takes.

I think what all human beings need is a sense that what they are doing is something worthwhile and has value and meaning. It's when we doubt this that our mental health suffers - this is where possibly some SAHMs are more vulnerable as their hard work and achievements, although no less real, are less quantifiable than the CEO of a company.

I think you make some really good points Pendulum,and your scenario about how this situation arises is totally spot on, but I would like to re-phrase the question
"What can be done by all women to ensure that all choices are equally valid and accessible?"
As,
"what can be done by men and women to ensure that all choices are equally valid and accessible" because it is only when men, and companies, see parenting as something that is done by men and women that women will get the same choices that men get.

sorry-italics fail there!