As already discussed, paid work was commonly constructed by the women as necessary to help provide for the family or for economic independence. Working in order to earn money was framed by the women as a constraint rather than a choice; for example, when talking about women’s choices generally they talked of women these days having to work rather than wanting to. In the following
extract, Helen is talking about the childcare subsidy in the Action Plan. She said she felt this was probably being offered by the government because they recognised that mothers had to go back to work for money, rather than to encourage mothers to work. When I asked for clarification I unintentionally changed her meaning by using the word “want”:
Ella: So you’re saying that you see this as being driven by, this is something the mothers want to do and this is the government helping them do it?
Helen: Well not necessarily that they want to go back to work but that they have to go back to
work.
Helen was very quick to correct me; mothers were not doing this because they wanted to, but because they had to. Suggesting that mothers want to work is too much in light of the power of the intensive mother discourse in which good mothers want to be with their children. Similarly, not long after a discussion about what the women would do if money was not an issue, I made the comment that most of the group had said they would like to work:
Ella: You’re pretty much all saying that you’d work, in your current situation, you’d like to work? ?: Yes.
?: Mmm..
Ella: Some. In your current financial situation (laughs) (group laughs) I’ve taken my magic wand back again.
Debra: So have to work as opposed to want to.
This positioned the women’s decisions as forced by financial circumstances, working for money is very strongly framed as “having to”. Although I did not ask what the families’ incomes were, I would guess that most would be average or above. This raises the question of the subjective nature of financial need, a point that Debra herself made later on:
Debra: Coz you know hire purchases, pay nothing for 12 months or whatever and {Kirsten: mortgages are higher} it’s so easy to get into debt these days and so to be able to support our lifestyles and you know the café culture and going out {? Mm} {Rita: yeah}. You know you always have to look nice and all the rest of it. Your baby has to wear the wear the best clothes and radada and, you know, yeah so I think we have to. Because that’s what our
generation has put ourselves into you know.
It is interesting that even following this comment about lifestyle it is still constructed as a need rather than a want: “have to look nice”, “baby has to wear the best clothes”. So that even as she acknowledges that these things are optional, this is constructed not as something they have individually chosen but something that is forced upon them: “so I think we have to”. Financial need is
constructed as the one exception to the intensive mother discourse; mothers should be at home unless they need the money, in which case it is acceptable to work.
Another interesting example of financial need as a justification is Helen’s explanation for her decision to return to her full time teaching job. While she starts by talking about how she misses her job, she moves quickly to framing her decision as a financial one that will benefit her daughter:
Helen: Well I just, I miss my job. And it's money, which is, I sort of, am not really torn but I do feel that having two incomes will be better for [my daughter] in the long run. You know it would be nice, it would be great for her, to be at home with her as well, but I've. I suppose it's telling yourself over and over again that my job is a really good job in the respect of the holidays and if I need to finish at 3.30 I can. And my husband with his shift work he has three and a half, four days off a week so we will be able to spend time with her as well. So she won't be in daycare all the time so that's why I feel like, I don't feel so bad to go back to work coz I know she's not going to be in there from 7 till 5.30 every day. Yeah so I feel quite happy to go back and I do miss my job. I love teaching.
Helen starts and finishes with a comment about missing her job and loving teaching which suggests that this is an important factor in her decision to return. But within the intensive mother discourse this is not acceptable because it positions her as selfish and putting her own needs before her child’s. Therefore the decision is reframed in terms of financial need: “it is money”. Within the dominant capitalist discourses everyone understands and accepts financial need as a motivator. Money is a more acceptable reason to leave your child while you return to work than wanting challenge or social contact. However, a danger of the financial need discourse is that it can elicit an accusation of materialism, putting the desire for material goods ahead of the child’s needs. Helen defends herself against this unspoken criticism by constructing the extra income as for her daughter’s benefit.
Despite describing herself as “not really torn”, Helen is the only one in the group who had stated she was planning to return to full time work in the foreseeable future, and she clearly felt the need to justify her decision. She works hard to refute the unspoken criticism stemming from the intensive mother discourse: Mothers who work full time are neglecting their children by not spending time with them. Her primary strategy is to demonstrate that her daughter will not be in full time childcare; a necessary comment given the group’s construction of full time care as negative as discussed earlier. Helen emphasises the flexibility of her job and the shift work that her husband does, and with the shift from “I” to “we”, she also constructs the care of their daughter as a mutual responsibility: “we will be able to spend time with her” drawing on an egalitarian parenting discourse. Her resistance of the dominant intensive mother discourse is not easy however as is made clear in her comment that it would “nice” and “great” for her daughter if she was at home with her, although two incomes “will be better”. At the end there is a suggestion that she does feel traces of guilt over her decision: “I don’t feel so bad going back to work”. The “so” suggests that she does feel bad, but not as bad as she would if her daughter was going to be in full time care.
The actions demanded of a commitment to “putting the child first” depend upon what children are constructed as needing. In Helen’s case she has constructed her daughter as needing two incomes more than she needs Helen at home. Similar reconstructions, of both mother and child, are allowing the
women to call on a discourse of putting the children first to support life choices other than full time stay-at-home mother.