D. Lynn O'Brien Hallstein Conceiving Intensive Mothering

academically informedfeminist approaches to intensive mothering continue to separate the ideologicalandpsychological in the analysis ofintensive mothering. In this essay, I argue that my analysir ofrhe Mommy Myth and Maternal Desire reveals the vestiges of a lingeringfear of the ideal "Mother"subjectposition within both texts thatperpetuate this split approach and will ultimately lead to feminisms' inability to theorize fully intensive mothering. I also suggest that, as a result, feminisms willbe unable t o theorize women's current split subjectivity and agency between the old '?deal"Mothersubjectposition anda newfeminist mothering subject position unless both institutional andpsychological approaches are integrated. I try to distinguish two meanings of motherhood, one superimposed on the other: the potentialrelationship of any woman to her powers of reproduction and to children; and the institution, which aims at ensuring that that potential-and all women-shall remain under male control. (Rich, 1986: 13, italics in original) There is no doubt about it: maternity-both the institution of motherhood and everyday experiences of mothering-has come out of the closest for many contemporary feminist writers. Indeed, motherhood and mothering are "hot" topics in the popular press, with a diverse range of issues covered: the ways that legal institutions penalize women as mothers is addressed in Unbending Gender (Williams, 2000); the anger, frustration, and confusion many women feel once they become mothers are central concerns in The Bitch in the House (Hanauer, 2002); how women can achieve both a family and a career given the structure of professional institutions is the topic of Creatinga L 9 (Hewlett, 2003) and, finally, the economic costs women pay as a result of being th