I understand her description of the problem's symptoms. Frazzled, frantic, always afraid we are not measuring up as mothers--yes. Paralyzed by conflicting advice from "experts"--yes. Torn by guilt if we take time for ourselves, torn by resentment if we don't--yes. Surrounded by self-described oracles who tell us how we are supposed to feel, what we are supposed to want, what choices we are supposed to make, what is acceptable to discuss, the "right" ordering of one's priorities, the correct way to tackle time binds and marital conflicts--yes. I'm just not sure I understand what she thinks the problem--"the mess" as she calls it--stems from.

I alluded in my review of The Mommy Myth that they are similar books, and it's true. They make many of of the same arguments, often using the same statistics from the same sources to argue the same points (for example, pointing out that the Mommy Wars are mostly a media construction, as most mothers move back and forth between home and the workplace, and often work part-time for a few years). They even talk about some of the same concepts with different terms; one book's New Momism seems to be the other book's Mommy Mystique. The Mommy Myth's Intensive Mothering seems to be Perfect Madness's Total Reality Motherhood. Where they differ is depth and breadth: The Mommy Myth made a coherent, cohesive argument, but it was too big for the book and they didn't go deeply enough. Perfect Madness, on the other hand, went deeply but seemed to make only half the argument, and it was infuriating.

Many of the points are excellent ones. Her discussion of how the widening gap between rich and poor and the disappearance of the middle class are pushing parents to prepare their children for positions as CEOs because anything less may mean they end up in poverty is a very good one. Her description of how women are taking onto themselves all the necessary functions that society used or ought to do is great. Her portrayal of the pressure women put on themselves, generously aided by media and sometimes by other mothers, to perform all of this to inhumanly high standards, and how this destroys their health and peace, is well done. But what does it add up to? I can't tell.

It's not a call to arms. She does argue that our current generation of women were neither born nor bred to be political agitators, but need to become political agitators in order to fight for a "politics of quality of life," and describes some potential policy solutions--but while the typical apolitical sensibility of women today is described in great depth (although it's not altogether convincing) there is no depth behind the policy solutions (which total up to a portion of one page in length) or suggestions as to how this generation ought to become political. It's more of a call to a call to arms.

It's not a feminist book. It's also not a post-feminist or anti-feminist book. It seems to try to straddle all camps, and as a result is at home in none. Most of her section detailing the apolitical tendencies of the current generation is a critique of post-feminist politics, which assume the battle has been won, equality achieved, and that what's left are details that can and should be taken on by the individual. But then all of her explicit mentions of mainstream feminism claim that it is anti-motherhood and anti-family, attempting to push all women into positions of authority and excellence whether they want it or not--and I'm not sure which books she's read, but that's not the face of feminism that I'm familiar with. An example is her critique of the "Mommy Track," which she says was attacked by feminists because it encouraged women to drop out of the workplace and return home. What I remember is that it was attacked because it put the burden of family care on women and had no expectation or suggestion for how men could scale back their careers to take on an increased share of family care, and was thus sexist--and it was.

She claims that mothers are being driven to crazy behaviour because societal supports aren't there to assist them in raising their families, that because daycare is hugely expensive and health care isn't available to many and decent houses and good schools are costly and rare, women are driving themselves nuts to try to be everything all the time for their kids. But then she argues that policy solutions which exist in Europe (and Canada, but she doesn't mention us, oddly) would never fly in the United States, and mothers should just "let themselves be." In the absence of policy supports which she decries as being the foundation of "this mess" in the first place, how could a mother ever follow that advice?

She claims that our current Total Reality Motherhood practices are harmful to ourselves and our relationships, which seems valid enough. She also claims that it's harmful to our kids, and offers no proof besides the anecdotal offerings of educators and doctors that kids today can't care for themselves and are spoiled rotten. Which sounds an awful lot like the "this generation of kids is spoiled/evil/violent/rotten/whatever" claptrap that a portion of adults always has, regardless of current parenting practices, and which is as often as not blamed on parenting that is too laissez-faire. She claims that these parenting practices and lifestyles are too blame for increasing levels of depression and medication in young children, which might be true, or it might not--perhaps it's pollution, or isolation, or frightening news on TV, or just that doctors are looking more at the signs of depression now and finding it more often in all populations, kids included.

And then she takes all of this and, despite the assurances that it's the lack of societal support in tangible measures and the increasing divide between wealth and poor that is mostly to blame, she advises women to just opt out of everything and decide not to be this kind of mother.

It has to be either one or the other. Either the "mess" is primarily a social construction of expectations, wealth distribution, policy supports or lack thereof, gender-based power imbalances in relationships, productivity demands at work, and so on--in which case it is pointless and cruel to advise women to "let themselves be" and just let go of hte whole mess without expecting everything including their kids' futures to just fall apart--or it is primarily an internal construct, based on a need for control, a belief in a post-feminist world which doesn't exist, a belief in a kind of mothering religion, competition and psychological issues--in which case societal and policy supports may be of assistance, but it's doubtful. It can't be primarily both.

Either it's a social problem or we're all crazy. But Warner doesn't come down on one side or the other, but dances between them, and leaves me dizzy with a headache.

Of course, as a Canadian with a much wider array of social supports, I do wonder how it is this all affects me so much if maternity leave, health care and public schools are supposed to fix everything. I argue that this comes back to choice--social supports for mothers don't just help women but also constrain and construct their choices in particular ways that may or may not be beneficial for any particular person or family. A maternity leave policy is an excellent thing, but if it is available only to people with particular kinds of jobs, then women wanting children will pursue them, even if they aren't the best, most highly paid or most rewarding work choices for them personally. While Warner does talk about choices and how most women have painful and painfully limited options that do not fill their needs or the needs of their families, so that the word "choice" becomes hollow, the argument is underlain with an American focus on individualism that ends up belying her point; and furthermore, it could have been usefully extended to how easy it is for even well-intentioned policies to end up constraining and constricting choices just as a lack of policy can do.

I do agree with one controversial position she has taken; that the middle and upper-middle class would need to be the focus of any successful such policy endeavour. It's too bad she didn't back this up with a few concrete examples, which aren't hard to come by--for instance, one of the main reasons the Canadian health care system is as successful as it is and as popular as it is is because it is available to all Canadians, thus ensuring a strong base of continuing middle-class support. Benefits and programs that are means-tested (target to the poor, for example, so that you need to be "poor enough" to qualify by having an income below a certain dollar amount) do not have the same continuing support, largely because the middle class does not benefit from it, and so they end up being eroded over time as the qualifying income level and the benefits paid go down. It is easy enough to say that her argument is elitist (and in many instances it is), but human nature being what it is, any solution that does not appeal to and support the middle class won't fly.

Unfortunately, despite having read the book twice (I even made notes!) her ultimate point eludes me. I remember reading somewhere (Misconceptions maybe?) that a mother met each new book on motherhood with dread and hope--"Is it for me or against me?" And I'm still not sure where Perfect Madness came down. Is it for me or against me? There are many things to recommend the book, many good arguments and some solid information as well as harrowing stories, but in the end I was unsatisfied. There are too many mixed and contradictory messages and no clear position.