Louis Theroux - Mothers on the Edge

whatwhatwhat wrote: »

again, i think the point is it is one sided only, imagine if you were checking in for a routine hospital visit and someone asked you that question, about your partner

or your child visiting the doctor for a graze and they started asking them if you did it

I don't feel uncomfortable at all, it's just a waste of time

I was responding to someone who said that the question made them uncomfortable.

I have absolutely no problem with a public health nurse or GP asking every pregnant woman the same screening questions about their domestic situation because domestic violence is a real problem, and pregnant women and the developing baby and newborn babies are all extremely vulnerable to domestic abusers.

If I brought my kid to the doctor for a graze and the doctor asked me how the injury was caused, I would have absolutely no issue with telling him/her.

If the same child appeared in a doctors surgery regularly for bruises or other physical injuries that they have no good explanation for then the doctor has a duty to report his/her concerns to the social services.

you seem very uncomfortable I must say

I put too much hot sauce in my chilli for dinner.

There won't be a toilet safe in the house tonight

Feisar wrote: »

She's being afforded this additional duty of care not for herself but because of our child.

This is frankly weird. What do you want them to do exactly?

If you think she is drinking or not coping, couldn't - and indeed shouldn't - you contact someone without being asked?

A pregnant woman who feels under threat from her partner though may well not be able to escape from him to get help. Why would it bother you that you don't get an equal chance to complain about her?

To answer the OPs post, the shocking thing is there are NO mother and baby units in Ireland. There are 2 psychiatrists specialized in the mental health of women during pregnancy and no psychology services specialized in the area. Think about yourself, your wife, your sister etc, and how there is nowhere for them to get support if they have a baby. As the doc very clearly conveyed, the ladies weren’t particularly disadvantaged or uniquely vulnerable. They were just people, not to dissimilar to you and I, who were caught in the eye of a perfect storm of biological and psychological stresses. I would love to see such a service lobbied for. And for those wondering if the baby is vulnerable, for the very small proportion of mothers who have thoughts about harming their baby, an even tinier percentage will act on these. The doc showed the babies sleeping in a separate room and there was no indication that the women were left alone with them. With this logic, anyone who has mental health difficulties are not safe to look after their children, which is not true.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Having read through the thread, I’d imagine he’s not the least bit bothered by it. It just seems to be a disingenuous attempt to point-score about “gender equality” :rolleyes:

I haven’t seen the documentary but tbh I wouldn’t be too interested in watching it or having “conversations” about it. It’s just my own personal take on these types of documentaries but I think they exploit vulnerable people’s personal circumstances and are often more divisive than they are in any way supportive - in this particular case of women experiencing postpartum psychosis which is far more rare than postpartum depression.

Yes I pretty much agree with all of that (there's a first!) and I also find myself rather torn about these sorts of documentaries about very ill people in general. There are so many ways that participating in a programme like this can harm them, and very few ways in which it can help them - although I suppose the informational aspect of telling people that this exists may count in its favour. And Theroux, unlike Jeremy Kyle :mad: seems to manage to be humane about/toward the people he interviews. Still there's a voyeuristic element to it.

I was also struck by his need to reassure himself that all these women did actually love their children. That was a really significant point, IMO, about how ill-at-ease society is with mothers who fail to fit into our model of motherhood,and it was barely reflected on at all. Louis Theroux could accept that they were ill, which is progress compared to how such women were treated in the past of course, but he couldn't accept the woman's own assertion that she didn't feel any love for her baby son, and couldn't allow her to say so without contradicting her. It clearly troubled him too much to just listen.

Given some of the extremists he has interviewed without ever needing to "put them right" it's really striking that he needed to do so with her.

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes I pretty much agree with all of that (there's a first!) and I also find myself rather torn about these sorts of documentaries about very ill people in general. There are so many ways that participating in a programme like this can harm them, and very few ways in which it can help them - although I suppose the informational aspect of telling people that this exists may count in its favour. And Theroux, unlike Jeremy Kyle :mad: seems to manage to be humane about/toward the people he interviews. Still there's a voyeuristic element to it.

I was also struck by his need to reassure himself that all these women did actually love their children. That was a really significant point, IMO, about how ill-at-ease society is with mothers who fail to fit into our model of motherhood,and it was barely reflected on at all. Louis Theroux could accept that they were ill, which is progress compared to how such women were treated in the past of course, but he couldn't accept the woman's own assertion that she didn't feel any love for her baby son, and couldn't allow her to say so without contradicting her. It clearly troubled him too much to just listen.

Given some of the extremists he has interviewed without ever needing to "put them right" it's really striking that he needed to do so with her.

I agree with much of this . Normally I find Louis very objective and his modus operandi is to stand back and listen . But as you say he seemed to struggle with some of the truths he heard .
It also struck me that he almost seemed to be a little patronising when he took the crying baby to comfort it . Having said all that it must be very hard to stand by and not reach out to a needy baby .
The lady who went home to her three small children seemed to be really struggling and I thought it sweet that Louis fed the toddler for her .
The six year old girl knew her mum was different and my heart went out to her .

There's a woman in my department who completed her PhD with four children. That's an inspiration to us all I think and I told her as much yesterday.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You're in cloud cuckoo land Susie. Take a walk around any of the less salubrious areas of Dublin for example and see for yourself the kids being dragged up by absolute wastes of space. Drunks, junkies, recidivist criminals and so on - pure wasters. The kids don't stand a chance, and social services are certainly not riding to their rescue!

There is zero possibility of anybody causing serious trouble for anyone else by merely saying they're overly fond of the drink or something like that.

My impression is that it is more about how random it is, that while you are right that many children are so badly cared for that they might well be better off in care, but when a woman comes under the notice of the authorities, then it can be very difficult for her to admit to any failings without risking setting off the trigger of removal.

There's a rather sad couple of posts on here on one of the recent pregnancy threads, where in the middle of all the happy posts, there is one expectant mum who describes her fear of not being able to look after the future baby but that she feels she can't ask for help IRL because of having had contact with Tusla over (past) issues of addiction. The reality is that she is probably not wrong - the first reaction of any social worker there is very likely to be to consider taking the children away.

Because she's an easy target, unlike, say, families where the father is dangerous and therefore scary to social workers too (I know one family where the social workers were always accompanied by the police when they visited, yet the children were left in that environment) and also because if anything did go wrong, the social worker who left the children with her would be crucified in the press. Much easier to remove them first and deal with any resulting issues after.

steddyeddy wrote: »

There's a woman in my department who completed her PhD with four children. That's an inspiration to us all I think and I told her as much yesterday.

Yeh maybe , maybe not . We all struggle in our own way , maybe she had huge support , maybe her partner stayed at home . Maybe she had an au pair , maybe her kids are amazing and well balanced and there again maybe not

Equally a mother on low income who manages the daily struggle and feeds and clothes and loves her kids is just as much to be admired

LouD2016 wrote: »

Exactly, there is so much pressure put on new mother's especially it's easy to see how so many struggle.

To me my child's happiness is paramount. I measure my success in that now.

Mine too , and they are fine , kind , hard working , caring adults and thats my claim to success

Lillyfae wrote: »

It was just a remark, I don't know how you figure that it's offensive to others to give praise to someone because of an achievement like that?? Maybe she had mental health issues, marriage breakdown, sick child etc etc etc and still completed the PhD. I myself went through huge adversity while writing a thesis and am proud of myself for not throwing in the towel. I always find it as a great source of comfort and strength in the days that I'm struggling to cope to think of what I achieved in spite of everything.

Which is why I wrote , maybe , maybe not .The info we got is she did a PhD with four kids .
I have seen so many inspirational women who care for sick children and give up everything to care for them .So many women who have children who are totally dependent on them and still manage to smile and be the best they can be .
Women who struggled with PND and who managed each day to put the baby first . Women who care for a disabled child and still arrive with the other three kids in the school yard all washed and fed and ready for school

So many women are an inspiration to me bu. Just simply having a PhD does not elevate anyone in my eyes . If there is more to her story well and good but all we got was she has a PhD

steddyeddy wrote: »

There's a woman in my department who completed her PhD with four children. That's an inspiration to us all I think and I told her as much yesterday.

i think that a statement like this would make a lot of mums feel inadequate.

LouD2016 wrote: »

I know they probably didn't mean it that way I just feel there is a lot of pressure to be superwomen and we all cant achieve that.

I bet that the woman with the PhD and 4 kids would be the last person to call herself "superwoman". Why should she be praised less just in case someone feels a bit sad that they don't have a PhD? It's just a bit flawed, those who are achieving something should apologize if someone else is unable to. Not only that, but we should pick on them too. It's a wonder more people aren't suffering from mental health issues if they have to try to ignore passive aggressive name calling for working their t*ts off for something.