No Matter Their Finances, There’s 1 Thing All Moms Stress About
The first night after we brought our son home from the hospital was a long, rocky one. Every 20-30 minutes, he woke, screaming, and, in a groggy haze, I brought him to my breast precisely as the lactation consultant and all the nurses had instructed me. But after a few moments, he would unlatch his tiny mouth and throw his head back to shriek. His face turned bright red with all the effort he was expending. It was clear that I was failing in my primal duty to feed my baby. I was terrified: How would we make it âtil morning? I was also filled with shame.
We eventually figured out how to meet my sonâs need for nourishment. He is now a lanky 15-year-old, and I have to crane my neck in order to make eye contact with him. But I still hold a vivid memory of that night, and the fear that arose from not having the food my child needed.
Advertisement
The work of feeding our children is central to parenting at every stage, and if we struggle, or are criticized, it cuts deep. In researching her book, âHow The Other Half Eats,â sociologist Priya Fielding-Singh interviewed parents and children from 75 families, observing four of these families in depth, to learn about how parents decide what to feed their children.
Predictably, she discovered sharp differences between low-income and high-income families. But she also found a through line. While their circumstances were worlds apart, the mothers (the overwhelming majority of her subjects identified as such) were driven to see themselves as âgoodâ moms in a culture that promotes what Fielding-Singh calls âintensive mothering,â which positions moms as pretty much solely responsible for keeping their kids healthy and happy and well-fed.
âMothers across society, across racial, ethnic groups, across socioeconomic status, all have the same motivation, which is to feel like good mothers,â Fielding-Singh told HuffPost.
What made a mother feel like she was doing a good job, Fielding-Singh found, depended greatly on her circumstances. Most of the lower-income moms she spoke with had endured at least one occasion, like my night with my newborn, in which their child was inconsolably hungry. In the book, she recounts in painful detail how one mother held a crying baby all night long because she didnât have enough money to buy more infant formula.
Advertisement
These experiences made an impact, influencing moms to prioritize preventing their kidsâ hunger over limiting grams of sugar or fat. They bought foods they knew their children would readily eat, whether or not these were the most nutritious options.
All parents want their childrenâs bellies full, but the ramifications of this depend on familiesâ resources. In wealthier households, it makes sense to throw away plates of uneaten broccoli in the name of introducing a new food to your child five, 10 or more times to train their palate. But if you only have a few dollars to get through the end of the week, ramen noodles may be your safest bet for full tummies and a good nightâs sleep.
![âMothers across society, across racial, ethnic groups, across socioeconomic status, all have the same motivation, which is to feel like good mothers,â Fielding-Singh told HuffPost.](./../wp-content/uploads/2024/07/no-matter-their-finances-theres-1-thing-all-moms-stress-about.jpg)
The Good Brigade via Getty Images
At the same time, the value that a food has for families is far more complex than its total calories. Food also wields symbolic weight. Fielding-Singh found that some wealthier families were faithful to certain brands that felt healthier or more wholesome to them, even when this wasnât always the case ingredients-wise. One upper middle-class mom wouldnât buy her kids Oreos, but regularly purchased Trader Joeâs Jo-Joâs, which are almost almost identical, nutritionally.
When it came to so-called âjunkâ food, families all had the same understanding of which foods were healthier and which ones were less so. But the symbolic value of these foods shifted greatly between rich families and poor ones. Fielding-Singh chronicled the ways that the wealthy families she observed parented from a place of abundance. They were able to say âyesâ to so many of their kidsâ requests: music lessons, summer camps, clothes. In this context, moms âhad the ability to say no without it being so emotionally distressing.â
Advertisement
Faced with a bag of Cheetos, a wealthy mom âfound it annoying to have to say no, but it didnât make her doubt whether she was a good mom to deny these requests,â Fielding-Singh said.
Lower-income moms, however, parented from a place of scarcity. âThey had to, on the regular, repeatedly say no to their kidsâ requests because they did not have the resources to provide them. They had to say no to vacations. They had to say no to money for new clothes. They had to say no to summer camps,â she explained. All of this takes a toll on how a parent feels, whether or not they can conceive of themselves as a âgoodâ mom.
âParenting, in a way where you have to say no all the time to your kidsâ requests because you canât provide them, not because you donât want to, but because you literally cannot, is extremely emotionally distressing,â Fielding-Singh said.
âJunkâ food, which most children request from their parents regularly thanks to intensive and strategic marketing, is everywhere. And itâs cheap. Itâs one request that low-income parents can say âyesâ to.
The nutritional impact of these foods was less of a concern, Fielding-Singh explained, because momsâ goal was to âemotionally and psychologically nourish their children through these foods.â Saying yes was a way of âmaking sure that their kids felt cared for and seen and heard by their parents,â she said.
Advertisement
Some momsâ financial burdens make these small splurges all the more meaningful. One mom didnât have enough money to fix the AC in her car, but she had enough cash to buy Frappuccinos for herself and her daughter on a hot day, bringing them a moment of relief and enjoyment together. The purchase might not have been ârational,â but it made a different kind of sense.
âWealthy families … parented from a place of abundance. They were able to say ‘yes’ to so many of their kidsâ requests: music lessons, summer camps, clothes. Lower-income moms, however, parented from a place of scarcity.â
All of the moms Fielding-Singh interviewed and observed felt the pressure of what she calls âintensive mothering.â The phrase was coined in the 1990s by sociologist Sharon Hays to describe the âunattainably high standards to which mothers in this country are held, specifying that moms need to be childrenâs primary caregivers, that they should be self-sacrificing, that mothering as an act should be labor-intensive and resource-demanding,â Fielding-Singh said.
Not only is this âan extremely high bar,â she continued, but it is âalso a moving target.â The wealthy moms who came closest to providing their kids with a nutritional ideal still felt they were falling short on the job.
âThe reality is that for most moms, their kidsâ diets are not what they would like them to be. Theyâre not what they would aspire to, and theyâre not what society tells them is the ultimate, the optimized diet for their children.â
Advertisement
The mothers in the book all take on the emotional labor of accounting for the distance between the ideal and the reality. Higher-income moms, Fielding-Singh found, tended to focus on the areas in which they saw themselves as lacking. She calls this âupscaling.â They raised expectations for themselves, creating more anxiety.
Lower-income moms, on the other hand, tended to downplay their hardship, comparing themselves to others who had it worse, or times in which money had been even tighter for their families. They told stories of hope, finding triumph in adversity the same way they found enough money for treats between the couch cushions.
âLower income mothers can be seen as not caring or complacent about their childrenâs diets,â Fielding-Singh said. âItâs actually not that at all. Itâs that theyâve found a way to navigate the extreme challenges of treating their kids within a context of, often, deprivation, and also be able to keep going each day, keep putting one foot in front of the other.â
Relief for mothers of all socioeconomic levels could come from a less intensive form of mothering that is not âcompletely individualized and privatized,â Fielding-Singh said.
âWe have a really toxic food environment that all of us have to navigate every single day. And itâs on mothers to navigate that environment for their children … the private and the public sector are not making this easier, theyâre not taking on any of the burden. Theyâre not shouldering any of the load.â
Advertisement
Companies could alter their products, as well as their marketing. Parents cannot be held entirely to blame when their children ask for foods that are aggressively marketed to them and carefully formulated to make them want more.
Nutritionist Jennifer Anderson calls these âhyperpalatableâ foods â foods like Cheetos and Oreos. These âfoods that have been engineered for us to get a bigger dopamine hit than if they had not been engineered … are the foods that weâre going to that are going to override our hunger and fullness cues,â Anderson told HuffPost.
She uses Cheez-its as an example. These (delicious) salty crackers are specifically crafted to deliver a burst of flavor that drops off quickly â leaving you wanting another hit. A parent on a tight budget, she explained, even one who has miraculously found the time to cook their kids a meal from scratch, can hardly compete with these highly processed foods that are so widely available.
âAfter you ate a bag of Cheetos, your momâs homemade meatloaf is just not as good,â Anderson told HuffPost. And once a child has had one bag of Cheetos, theyâll probably be asking for more. The addictive nature of the food is, in and of itself, a kind of marketing strategy, she explained.
Whatâs needed to help families eat better, she believes, is structural change to address issues such as âthe food industry dumping food marketing on children in lower-income areas.â
Advertisement
Policy changes that take some of the weight off mothers and acknowledge our collective role as a society in feeding children a healthy diet might include universal free school breakfast and lunch programs and subsidies and incentives to make fruits and vegetables more affordable. Indirectly, other kinds of support for parents such as paid leave and universal health care would also contribute to bettering kidsâ diets.
In her bookâs concluding chapter, Fielding-Singh writes: âThe point is simple. When parents are cared for by society, they can best support their kids.â
Comments are closed.