Intensive mothering
When the glamor of the workplace wears off and/or when the misogyny and the harassment become too much, women who have the financial stability may decide to return to the role of the stay-at-home mother. Perhaps, in the home, she can feel fulfilled. Yet, young American urban and suburban mothers now parent under a new name – “intensive mothering.”
Conducting in-depth interviews of 38 women of diverse backgrounds in the United States, Sharon Hays found women describing their 2- to 4-year-old children as innocent and priceless, and believing that they – the mothers – should be primarily responsible for rearing their children, using “child-rearing methods that are child centered, expert guided, emotionally absorbing, labor intensive, and financially expensive.”3 Ms. Hays clarified four beliefs that were common to all the women in the study: mothers are more suitable caregivers than fathers; mothering should be child centered; parenting consists of a set of skills that need to be learned; and parenting is labor-intensive but an emotionally fulfilling activity.
Hays wondered if this type of mothering developed as the last defense against “the impoverishment of social ties, communal obligations and unremunerated commitments.”3 She suggested that women succumbing to social pressures to return to the home is yet another example of how society is set up to benefit men, capitalism, political leaders, and those who try to maintain a “traditional” form of family life.3 Ms. Hays concluded that the practice of intensive mothering is a class-based practice of privileged white women, entangled with capitalism in that the buying of “essential” baby products is equated with good mothering. She found this ideology to be oppressive of all women, regardless of their social class, ethnic background, household composition, and financial situation. Ms. Hays noted that many women experience guilt for not matching up to these ideals.
In “Dead End Feminism,” Elisabeth Badinter asks if the upheaval in the role of women has caused so much uncertainty that it is easier for women to regress to a time when they were in the home and knew themselves as mothers. They ask if this has been reinforced by the movement to embrace all things natural, eschewing the falseness of chemicals and other things that threaten Mother Earth.4
There is no escaping the power of the mother: she will continue to symbolize all that is good and bad as the embodiment of the Mother Archetype. All of this is the background against which you will see the new mother in the family. She will not articulate her dilemma, that is your role as the family psychiatrist.
Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Contact Dr. Heru at alison.heru@ucdenver.edu.
References
1. Martin LH et al (eds.). Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. University of Massachusetts Press: Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts Press, 2022.
2. How Pamela Culpepper Is Changing The Narrative Of Women In The Workplace. Huffpost. 2020 Mar 6. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pamela-culpepper-diversity-inclusion-empowerment_n_5e56b6ffc5b62e9dc7dbc307.
3. Hays S. Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale University Press: New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1996.
4. Badinter E. (translated by Borossa J). Dead End Feminism. Malden, Mass.: Polity Press, 2006.