number of articles have appeared in the press in recent years, especially in glossy
weekend ‘lifestyle’ supplements, testifying to a supposed move of middle class and
professional women ‘back into the home’ on becoming mothers (e.g. Horton 2008; De
Marneffe 2006; Keating 2006; Wood 2006). Similarly Christina Hardyment (2007) in
a recent review of the history of childcare advice, comments that ‘a surprise new
development in the last decade has been a backlash against going back to work after
having a baby. It might fairly be called a Mother’s Pride movement. Convinced of
the importance of bringing up their children themselves, women who can afford to...
are positively choosing not to work’ (2007, p.301). She does not mention social class
but her description, continued in the book, makes it plain that she is talking of middle
class mothers. It is also true that in our earlier study of middle class families only a
small minority of respondent mothers (10 out of 59) worked full-time (Vincent & Ball
2006).
The decision to stay at home and not to return to return to work may be being made
by some middle class mothers because of the stress and tensions caused by trying to
work in demanding jobs and to fulfil mothering responsibilities. Sharon Hays (1996)
has famously described dominant discourses around mothering as ‘intensive
mothering’. Intensive mothering requires the mother to take on complete
responsibility for all aspects of children’s cognitive, social, emotional and physical
development. It requires a centreing of children and their needs in family life,
accompanied by a considerable degree of maternal self-sacrifice. Intensive mothering
is conducted against a growing background of advice manuals, childrearing ‘experts’
and media comment. ‘The methods of appropriate child rearing are construed as
child-centred, expert-guided, emotionally absorbing, labour intensive, and financially
28