This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion
may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails.
Au ho (s):
Ti le:
Yea :
Ve sion:
Copy igh :
Righ s:
Righ s u l:
Please ci e he o iginal e sion:
CC BY 4.0
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
“I eel many con adic o y emo ions” : Finnish mo he s' discu si e s uggles wi h
mo he hood
© 2022 he Au ho s
Published e sion
Raudasoja, Mi jam; So kkila, Ma ilda; Lai ila, Aa no; Aunola, Kaisa
Raudasoja, M., So kkila, M., Lai ila, A., & Aunola, K. (2022). “I eel many con adic o y emo ions”
: Finnish mo he s' discu si e s uggles wi h mo he hood. Jou nal o Ma iage and he Family,
84(3), 752-772. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/jom .12828
2022
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
“I eel many con adic o y emo ions”: Finnish
mo he s’discu si e s uggles wi h mo he hood
Mi jam Raudasoja | Ma ilda So kkila | Aa no Lai ila |
Kaisa Aunola
Depa men o Psychology, Uni e si y o
Jy äskylä, Jy äskylä, Finland
Co espondence
Mi jam Raudasoja, Depa men o
Psychology, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, PO Box
35, Kä ki, FI-40014 Jy äskylä, Finland.
Email: mi jam.a.k. audasoja@jyu. i
Funding in o ma ion
Alli Paasiki en Sää iö, G an /Awa d Numbe :
21000041571
Abs ac
Objec i e: The aim o he s udy was o acili a e he unde -
s anding and in e p e a ion o mul iple aspec s o wo king
wi h mo he s by examining Finnish mo he s’mo he ing
discou ses and he in e play among hese discou ses.
Backg ound: Acco ding o ela ional dialec ics heo y, dis-
cou ses a e sys ems o meaning ha a e cop oduced in
in e ac ion. Al hough discu si e esea ch on mo he hood
has iden i ied a ious discou ses, esea ch on he in e play
among compe ing mo he hood discou ses is in i s in ancy.
Me hod: Quali a i e ques ionnai e da a om 479 Finnish
mo he s o in an s we e analyzed using con apun al anal-
ysis. Mo he s’ esponses o h ee open-ended ques ions
we e analyzed induc i ely. Eme ging hemes we e iden i-
ied so as o ep esen di e en mo he hood discou ses,
and he powe s uggle among discou ses was add essed.
Resul s: Fou discou ses we e iden i ied. In he Equali y
discou se, pa en ing was p esen ed as ideally sha ed
be ween co-pa en s, and equali y be ween amily membe s
and a ious amily o ms was p omo ed. In he Familis ic
discou se, adi ional s ay-a -home mo he ing, good house-
keeping, and he uni y o he amily we e emphasized. In
he In ensi e Mo he ing discou se, he impo ance o he
mo he o he child was highligh ed. In he Balance dis-
cou se, he needs o all amily membe s we e p esen ed as
equally impo an , and lexibili y in pa en ing choices was
p omo ed. The esul s demons a ed discu si e s uggles
wi hin mo he s’answe s, sugges ing ha con empo a y
Finnish mo he hood is a con es ed e ain o compe ing
ideologies.
Conclusion: The indings sugges ha Finnish mo he s’
mo he ing discou ses a e mul i ocal and o en compe ing.
Recei ed: 20 Oc obe 2020 Re ised: 10 Janua y 2022 Accep ed: 3 Feb ua y 2022
DOI: 10.1111/jom .12828
This is an open access a icle unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License, which pe mi s use, dis ibu ion and
ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed.
© 2022 The Au ho s. Jou nal o Ma iage and Family published by Wiley Pe iodicals LLC on behal o Na ional Council on Family
Rela ions.
J. Ma iage Fam. 2022;1–21. wileyonlinelib a y.com/jou nal/jom 1
The esul s con ibu e o he cu en unde s anding o
mo he hood ideologies and p o ide new insigh s o be u i-
lized in counseling and clinical p ac ice.
KEYWORDS
amilies, gende oles, mo he hood, mo he s, pa en ing, quali a i e
me hodology
INTRODUCTION
Becoming a mo he is a ansi ional ime o iden i y cons uc ion (Me ce , 2004) and adop ing
a new social ole. Du ing ha pe iod, women encoun e nume ous messages ega ding app o-
p ia e mo he hood in hei social en i onmen (Choi e al., 2005). Mo he s mus nego ia e hei
esponsibili ies o bo h wo k and amily (Blai -Loy, 2003), as well as o a ious mo he ing ide-
ologies (Abe z & Moo e, 2018). Al hough p e ious esea ch has demons a ed he coexis ence
o a ious mo he ing discou ses in Wes e n cul u es (e.g., Dow, 2016; Hays, 1996; Pe älä-
Li unen, 2007), li le is known abou how mo he s cons uc he meaning o mo he hood
h ough he in e play be ween hese discou ses. Acco ding o ela ional dialec ics heo y
(RDT), discou ses a e sys ems o meaning ha a e cop oduced in social in e ac ion
(Bax e , 2011). Howe e , di e en discou ses do no unc ion on an equal playing ield; some
discou ses a e mo e dominan han o he s (Bax e , 2011). Discu si e s uggles a e hus c ucial
elemen s when in es iga ing whe he and how cul u al p essu es mani es hemsel es among
mo he s’discou ses. In he p esen s udy, we applied RDT o explo e Finnish mo he s’mo he -
ing discou ses and he in e play be ween hese discou ses du ing he i s yea o mo he ing.
The Finnish con ex p o ides a p omising se ing in which o s udy mo he hood om an RDT
pe spec i e. In Finnish cul u e, ideologies o gende equali y, indi idualism, and amilism coex-
is and, hus, a e likely o be in compe i ion wi h one ano he in he mo he ing discou se
(e.g., Lammi-Taskula, 2007). A s ong egali a ian emphasis in poli ics (Minis y o Social
A ai s and Heal h, 2017) and gende ed pa en ing ideals in he cul u e (Jallinoja, 2006; Pe älä-
Li unen, 2007, 2018) may p oduce con adic o y expec a ions in Finnish mo he s. The esul s
o he p esen s udy will inc ease ou unde s anding o mo he hood ideologies and p o ide new
insigh s in o he belie s and cul u al p essu es ha Finnish mo he s expe ience in mo he hood.
Hope ully, he indings o his s udy will also p o ide insigh s ha can be use ul o any o he
cul u es dealing wi h simila con adic o y expec a ions and p essu es.
MOTHERHOOD DISCOURSES IN CONTEMPORARY WESTERN
CULTURES
The e m “mo he hood discou ses” e e s o he meaning sys ems o mo he hood ha ci cula e
in a cul u e (Bax e , 2011). These discou ses ep esen a gi en mo he ing ideology, de ining
“good mo he ing”and he ole o mo he hood in a woman’s li e (Gunde son & Ba e , 2015;
Hays, 1996). Mo he hood discou ses a e embedded in his o ical and cul u al en i onmen s and,
hus, a e in luenced by social o de s, policies, and alues a ached o “ amily”in a pa icula
socie y, as well as p e ailing gende -equali y belie s (Gilbe , 2008). Cul u es a e posi ioned di -
e en ly in he con inuum be ween indi idualism and collec i ism (Ho s ede, 2001). Indi idual-
ism e e s o a gene al belie in pe sonal esponsibili y o one’s li e, whe eas collec i ism e e s
o aluing he needs o he communal g oup (e.g., amily, chu ch, o na ion) o e hose o he
indi idual (Bax e , 2011; Ho s ede, 2001). One would expec ha he indi idualism o con em-
po a y Wes e n cul u es would ha e eed women om “ he cons ain s o ma iage and
2JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
mo he hood”(e.g., Rich, 1995). Indeed, he inc easing gende egali a ian a i udes in Eu ope
and he Uni ed S a es ha e challenged adi ionalism, which a o s gende ed oles in socie y o
men and women (Knigh & B in on, 2017). The de elopmen o gende equali y has, howe e ,
hal ed since he mid-1990s (Co e e al., 2011; Knigh & B in on, 2017). Some esea che s e en
speak o a s alling o such (England, 2010) o he end o he gende e olu ion (Co e
e al., 2011) in Wes e n socie ies and speak o a enaissance o amilism. T adi ionally, amilism
has e e ed o an ideology ha p omo es con en ional amily oles, wi h gende ed esponsibili-
ies o ea ning and childca e (Co e e al., 2011). Mo e ecen ly, howe e , he amilism o ea -
lie decades has been eplaced by egali a ian amilism, which suppo s s ay-a -home mo he ing
while also emphasizing gende equali y and indi idual eedom o choice (Co e e al., 2011).
Con empo a y womanhood in he Uni ed S a es has been p oposed o en ail wo compe ing
cogni i e schemas ha a e amed as incompa ible (Blai -Loy, 2003): de o ion o wo k and
de o ion o amily. The schema o de o ion o wo k implies ha women should commi mos o
hei ime and ene gy o he occupa ional wo ld and hei ca ee s. The schema o de o ion o
amily, in u n, in i es women o see amily li e as he mos p ecious domain and sac i ice hei
own endea o s o he well-being o hei husband and child en. By de o ing hemsel es o one
schema, women may eel as i hey a e be aying he o he , esul ing in eelings o guil and
eg e (Blai -Loy, 2003).
Some esea ch indings sugges ha mo he s may econcile con adic ing mo he hood ideals
by e aming hem. Fo example, Blai -Loy (2003) ound ha high-achie ing US mo he s
decided o wo k pa - ime o espond o bo h wo k and amily de o ion schemas.
Ch is ophe (2012), in u n, ound, among a di e se sample o 40 employed mo he s in he
Uni ed S a es, ha mo he s cons uc ed “ex ensi e mo he ing”as a o m o good mo he ing.
Ex ensi e mo he ing included delega ing a subs an ial amoun o childca e o o he s and
e aming good mo he ing as being ul ima ely in cha ge o one’s child en’s well-being. Fu he -
mo e, acco ding o Land y (2000) A ican Ame ican mo he s cul i a e commi men bo h o
amily, communi y, and ca ee alike. In line wi h his, Dow (2016) demons a ed ha A ican
Ame ican mo he s cons uc ed in eg a ed mo he ing, which was buil on h ee expec a ions
ega ding mo he hood (Dow, 2016): mo he s should wo k ou side he home, be inancially
independen , and use kin and communi y membe s as ca egi e s o hei child en (see also
Ba nes, 2008). Finally, Segu a (1992) sugges ed ha Chicana mo he s (mo he s o Mexican o i-
gin li ing in he Uni ed S a es) who wo k in whi e-colla jobs may need o balance be ween pe -
sonal success and main aining hei cul u e. Fo hese women, bo h job pe o mance and
ca e aking wo k a home ein o ce a sense o accomplishmen o cul u e and e hnici y. Bo h
ypes o wo k also help main ain gende ed social ela ions.
O e all, con empo a y Wes e n mo he s seem o be su ounded by many di e en dis-
cou ses. Since he 1990s, many concep ualiza ions, such as “in ensi e mo he ing”(Hays, 1996;
Hende son e al., 2016), “ he mommy my h”(Douglas & Michaels, 2004), and “comba i e
mo he ing”(Moo e & Abe z, 2016) ha e been p oposed. The In ensi e Mo he ing discou se,
ad oca ed bo h by child- ea ing expe s and mo he s hemsel es, concep ualizes child en and
mo he ing as sac ed; i emphasizes he esponsibili y o mo he s and in ensi e child- ea ing
me hods, which equi e emendous amoun s o ene gy, ime, and inancial esou ces
(Hays, 1996). I has been p oposed as he dominan discou se in he Uni ed S a es since Wo ld
Wa II (Gunde son & Ba e , 2015; Hende son e al., 2016) and desc ibed in o he Wes e n
cul u es as well (Hende son e al., 2016; Pe älä-Li unen, 2018). Some US schola s claim ha
he s anda ds o mo he ing seem o be e e escala ing because o media po ayals o “good”
and “bad”mo he hood, misleading epo s o childhood h ea s, and he ma ke ing o “educa-
ional” oys and ac i i ies (Douglas & Michaels, 2004). These media in luences ha e inc eased
since he 1980s in he Uni ed S a es, in line wi h he ise o he in ensi e mo he ing ideology
and an i eminis backlash in popula cul u e (Co e e al., 2011). Social media has u he acil-
i a ed a compe i ion be ween mo he s ega ding who is bes (Abe z & Moo e, 2018). Acco ding
DISCURSIVE STRUGGLES WITH MOTHERHOOD 3
o Abe z and Moo e (2018), mo he ing ideologies ha e mul iplied and solidi ied, making i nec-
essa y o de end one’s own pa en ing choices as he bes o one’s child en.
In he p e ious li e a u e, di e en mo he ing discou ses ha e been iden i ied, and hei
coexis ence wi hin he same cul u e has been demons a ed. Howe e , esea ch in cul u al con-
ex s ou side he Uni ed S a es is a e. Mo eo e , li le is known abou how hese a ious dis-
cou ses unc ion in ela ion o one ano he in mo he s’accoun s o mo he hood. Acco ding o
he RDT (Bax e , 2011), discou ses can be unde s ood as sys ems o meaning ha a e
cop oduced in in e ac ion. In addi ion o iden i ying discou ses, i is impo an o examine hei
unc ioning and in e pene a ion and hus add ess hei powe ela ions (Su e &
No wood, 2017). We a gue ha mo he hood is an ideological e ain ha is likely o in oke dis-
cu si e s uggles (Bax e , 2011), e en in he mos con en ional se ings (i.e., he e osexual, ma -
ied, middle-class mo he s). By unde s anding hese s uggles, i is possible o gain insigh s in o
wha i means o be a mo he in con empo a y socie y.
THE FINNISH MOTHERHOOD CONTEXT
Finnish cul u e, like o he Wes e n coun ies, is highly indi idualis ic (Ho s ede, 2001). Finnish
pa en ing policy ollows he No dic wel a e s a e model (Mää ä & Uusiau i, 2012). Public,
s a e- unded childca e se ices a e a ailable o all child en. Howe e , s aying a home wi h a
child is inancially suppo ed. A ma e ni y allowance—p o ided o 105 days—is a o m o
go e nmen -subsidized ime o mo he s o ake ca e o child en. The amoun depends on
mo he s’income du ing he p e ious yea . The i s 56 days o his pe iod can be compensa ed
o wi h up o 90% o sala y i he mo he is employed. This subsidized pe iod can be p olonged
wi h a pa en al allowance (158 wo king days; KELA, 2021), which can be used by ei he pa en
bu is o e whelmingly (90.5%) used by mo he s (O icial S a is ics o Finland (OSF), 2019a). I
he mo he is employed du ing he pa en al lea e and he employe pays he sala y du ing
pa en al lea e, hese allowances a e paid o he employe (KELA, Social insu ance ins i u ion
o Finland, 2021). A e ma e ni y lea e and pa en al lea e, a pa en (ei he mo he o a he )
may s ill emain a home wi h a smalle child home ca e allowance un il he younges child
u ns h ee (KELA, 2021). The employmen a e o Finnish mo he s o child en unde age 6 is
conside ably lowe han in o he No dic coun ies (Ellingsae e & Lei a, 2006). In 2019, only
32% o mo he s o in an s (child en up o 12 mon hs old) we e employed (OSF, 2019b).
In Finland, gende equali y in pa en ing, a home, and in he wo kplace, is conside ed
ad anced (Seie s ad & Healy, 2012; Wo ld Economic Fo um, 2010). The o icial gende equal-
i y poli ics aim o p omo e equali y be ween women and men and p e en disc imina ion based
on gende , iden i y, o gende exp ession (Minis y o Social A ai s and Heal h, 2017). How-
e e , mo he s o en ake p ima y esponsibili y o childca e, e en when hey e u n o wo k
a e ma e nal lea e (Nä i, 2012). Women in Finland also expe ience mo e wo k– amily con-
lic han men do, despi e hei ewe hou s spen on paid wo k (Öun, 2012). This may be
ela ed o he p omo ion o “mode n amilism,”which has been inc easingly popula in Finnish
discou se since he u n o he millennium (Jallinoja, 2006). Based on he induc i e analysis o
newspape en ies, Jallinoja (2006) p oposed ha mode n amilism is buil on wo p incipal
ideas: (1) “s ay-a -home mo he ing,”which s ipula es ha mo he s should s ay a home when
hei child en a e small and a ange communal childca e so as o be as home-like as possible
(pp. 131–136) and (2) “good pa en ing,”wi h he common belie ha “los pa en ing”(i.e., he
o e ly pe missi e and neglec ul pa en ing p ac ices e oked by highly indi idualis ic cul u e)
esul s in “ill-being” o child en, adolescen s, and amilies (pp. 112–125). To a oid he conse-
quences o “los pa en ing,”mode n amilism sugges s ha amilies should spend mo e ime
oge he , he upb inging o child en should be amily-cen e ed ye aided by p o essionals, and
pa en al con ol should be exe ed mo e o en o guide child en’s de elopmen . Jallinoja’s
4JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY

amilism ep esen s a o m o egali a ian amilism (Co e e al., 2011) ha p omo es adi ional
amily oles while a he same ime emphasizing gende equali y and indi idual eedom o
choice. Finnish women may hus be exposed o compe ing cul u al alues conce ning gende
equali y, independence, and amily alues. Compe ing cul u al alues a e likely o p o oke di -
e en discou ses o mo he hood. By explo ing how discu si e s uggles mani es in women’s
w i en esponses, i is possible o ob ain insigh s in o how mo he s deal wi h cul u al p essu es
and s ess.
THE PRESENT STUDY
The p esen s udy aimed o iden i y Finnish mo he s’own discou ses o mo he ing and examine
he in e play among hose discou ses. The da a we e comp ised o Finnish mo he s’open-ended
w i en esponses o su ey ques ions abou hei mo he ing expe ience. The esea ch ques ions
we e as ollows: (1) Wha kinds o discou ses o mo he hood can be iden i ied om Finnish
mo he s’open-ended esponses o su ey ques ions abou hei pa en ing esou ces, desi ed sup-
po , and o he ma e s hey wish o men ion? (2) How do mo he s cons uc he meaning o
mo he hood in hei esponses h ough he in e play among di e en mo he hood discou ses?
The i s yea a e childbi h is a ansi ional pe iod o changing ela ionship iden i y
(Me ce , 2004), and he e o e, his pe iod was chosen as he scope o he p esen s udy.
Acco ding o Bax e (2011), discu si e s uggles o ela ionship iden i y “can be iden i ied in
bold elie ”(p. 94) in ela ionship ansi ions (such as ha ing a baby). Indeed, Choi e al. (2005)
p oposed ha new mo he s s uggle wi h he disc epancy be ween he my hs and eali ies o
mo he hood, which may hen os e eelings o guil and shame and inc ease e o s o pe o m
socially desi able mo he hood. We expec ha he women in ou s udy will use complex
me hods o nego ia e and shape hei mo he hood discou ses and ha hese me hods will ollow
hegemonic discou ses, such as in ensi e mo he ing (Hays, 1996), mode n amilism
(Jallinoja, 2006), and gende egali a ianism (Knigh & B in on, 2017). Because o he s ong
egali a ian emphasis in poli ics, i is likely ha gende egali a ianism in Finnish mo he s’dis-
cou se will s and mo e s ongly in con as wi h adi ional discou ses han in o he cul u es.
METHOD
Da a collec ion
The da a o he p esen s udy we e ob ained in he con ex o a la ge s udy (Aunola &
So kkila, 2018) add essing Finnish pa en s’demands and esou ces. F om a la ge sample o
pa en s (n=1725 pa en s; 91% mo he s), in an s’(≤1 yea old) mo he s we e chosen as he
ocus o he p esen s udy (n=479). The backg ound in o ma ion o he sample is p esen ed in
Table S1. The cha ac e is ics o he sample should be aken in o accoun when in e p e ing he
esul s o he p esen s udy. Mos no ably, he sample was e hnically and acially homogenous
(99.4% Finnish). As compa ed o he gene al popula ion, he educa ional le el o he pa ici-
pan s o he p esen sample was conside ably highe (in he sample o he p esen s udy, 74% o
pa icipan s had a uni e si y o college deg ee, whe eas in he gene al popula ion o Finnish
women, 36.3% had a uni e si y o college deg ee in 2018; OSF, 2018). The numbe o child en
was sligh ly highe han in he a e age amily (2.14 child en in he sample o he p esen s udy
s. 1.84 child en on a e age in amilies wi h child en; OSF, 2019b). Also, pa icipan s we e
mo e o en employed (50%) han mo he s o in an s in he gene al popula ion (36%).
The mo he s comple ed he esea ch ques ionnai e in 2018, ei he online (79.5%), as ad e -
ised ia a ious social media channels, o in pe son (20.5%) a Child Heal h Ca e Cen e s
DISCURSIVE STRUGGLES WITH MOTHERHOOD 5
loca ed in h ee Finnish ci ies. A he Child Heal h Ca e Cen e s, nu ses in oduced he s udy o
pa en s a he end o hei appoin men s; he pa en s hen comple ed he su ey and e u ned i
ei he by d opping i in a box ma ked o he esea ch in he wai ing oom o mailing i o he
esea che s in a p epaid en elope. The su ey included ques ions abou pa en ing, such as ques-
ions ega ding pa en ing s yles, pa en al alues, and pa en al bu nou . E hical app o al o he
o e a ching esea ch p ojec was ob ained om he e hics commi ee o he ele an uni e si y
(Augus 2018). To ensu e in o med consen , all pa icipan s signed a olun a y pa icipa ion
o m and ecei ed w i en in o ma ion abou he s udy. They we e in o med ha he s udy
add esses Finnish pa en s’expe iences abou pa en ing demands and esou ces. They did no
ecei e any compensa ion o pa icipa ion.
In he p esen s udy, he answe s o 479 mo he s o h ee open-ended ques ions om he
b oade ques ionnai e we e analyzed: (1) Resou ces (Please w i e down hings ha gi e you joy
in pa en ing and/o help you cope); (2) Suppo (Which kinds o hings— o example, suppo and
se ices—would bes os e you well-being and happiness as a pa en ?); and (3) O he (Is he e
some hing else ha you wish o men ion ega ding you sel , you amily o you pa en ing?).
Resou ces we e asked abou only in he online e sion o he ques ionnai e, whe eas he o he
wo ques ions (Suppo and O he ) we e included in bo h e sions o he ques ionnai e. The
open-ended ques ions we e si ua ed in he middle (Resou ces and Suppo ) and a he end o he
su ey (O he ). Typically, esponses anged om one wo d o a ew pa ag aphs in leng h. O
he mo he s, 89% answe ed he ques ion on Resou ces, 78% answe ed he ques ion on Suppo ,
and 36% answe ed he ques ion on O he ma e s. A o al o 91% o pa icipan s p o ided
answe s o a leas one open-ended ques ion. All h ee open-ended su ey ques ions con ibu ed
o explo ing he esea ch ques ions. Because pa s o he b oade ques ionnai e measu ed sensi-
i e ac o s, such as a i udes conce ning gende oles and pa en s’gene al well-being, i is possi-
ble ha his con ex i sel a ec ed pa icipan s’answe s o open-ended ques ions (i.e., i migh
ha e aised up pa icula ly hose kinds o discou ses in o he pa icipan s’awa eness ha ela e
on hese speci ic opics). This may mean ha he con adic ions appea mo e p onounced han
hey would in a mo e neu al con ex .
The su ey esponses o open-ended ques ions we e o iginally in Finnish, bu he da a
exempla s we e ansla ed in o English o he pu poses o he p esen s udy. The au ho s
played di e en oles in he design o he s udy (Au ho s 2 and 4), da a analysis (Au ho 1), he
in e p e a ion o esul s (Au ho s 1 and 3), and he e i ica ion o esul s (all au ho s). None o
he au ho s was di ec ly in ol ed in da a collec ion.
Da a analysis
In he da a analysis, he RDT (Bax e , 2011; Bax e e al., 2021) was used as a heo e ical
amewo k. The RDT p esumes ha meanings a e likely o eme ge om he unequal playing
ield o a ious discou ses. Acco ding o he RDT, discou ses a e bo h ollowed and esis ed in
communica ion, and hei in e ac ion is cha ac e ized by a s uggle o meaning be ween com-
pe ing discou ses (Su e & No wood, 2017). The bene i o he RDT is he abili y o analyze
mo e han one discou se a a ime and how discou ses a e p oduced in in e ac ion wi h one
ano he . Di e en discou ses a e no equal; a he , dominan discou ses hold powe o e ma -
ginalized discou ses. Discu si e powe also ein o ces social s uc u es so ha g oups o people
oicing dominan iews hold powe o e less ad an aged g oups (Bax e e al., 2021). The goal
o he RDT is o “open space o oices ha a e mu ed o dismissed”(Su e & No wood, 2017,
p. 294), which makes i a c i ical heo y (Bax e e al., 2021).
Following he RDT amewo k, con apun al analysis (see Bax e , 2011) was applied o
answe he esea ch ques ions. To answe he i s esea ch ques ion, he six phases o con a-
pun al analyses we e ca ied ou (Bax e , 2011; B aun & Cla ke, 2006): (1) imme sing onesel in
6JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
he da a; (2) ini ial coding and o ganizing hemes; (3) o mula ing discou ses; (4) e iewing dis-
cou ses; (5) de ining and naming discou ses; and (6) loca ing exempla s. Some answe s (n=40;
4.5% o he o al numbe o esponses om he 479 mo he s in he subsample) o open-ended
ques ions we e e y sho and did no include su icien in o ma ion (e.g., “No need o (mo e)
suppo ,”“I don’ know,”o “I can’ imagine”), commen ed on he p ac icali ies o he esea ch
i sel , o consis ed o explana ions o pa icipan s’choices in quan i a i e sec ions o he ques-
ionnai e. The e o e, hese answe s we e le ou o he analysis. In he ini ial coding ( he second
phase o da a analysis), he aw da a we e i s ca ego ized in o elemen s ha ep esen ed di e -
en sub hemes, and hen, he o e a ching hemes o discou ses (consis ing o a ious sub hemes)
we e iden i ied. Discou ses we e o mula ed ( he hi d phase o da a analysis) by clus e ing
hemes in o la ge pa e ns: he discou ses we e colo -coded in he da a, and he p ocess was
con inued un il sa u a ion was eached.
In mos esponses, se e al ideas could be iden i ied and g ouped in many discou se ca ego ies,
and one ex ual segmen could ep esen se e al coexis ing discou se ypes. Because di e en dis-
cou ses we e exp essed by he same pa icipan , pa icipan s we e no ca ego ized in o discou se ca -
ego ies. The iden i ied discou ses we e es ed agains addi ional da a, and discou se ca ego ies we e
u he de ined and named. As a esul o his e ining p ocess, he hemes we e eo ganized o o m
ou discou ses. Finally, he da a we e analyzed again o es hese ou ca ego ies o discou ses. A
nega i e case analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was pe o med o de e mine whe he he e we e da a
segmen s ha did no i he indings. Finally, exempla s ha cap u ed he essence o a gi en dis-
cou se we e iden i ied om he da a. Quo ed pe sons we e gi en pseudonyms o ensu e he ano-
nymi y o pa icipan s. Th oughou he analysis p ocess, an audi ail was kep , including no es on
analy ical decisions, no es on discussions be ween esea che s, he i s analys ’s e lec ions on he
opic and he analysis p ocess, and desc ip ions o he indings.
To answe he second esea ch ques ion, he analysis was con inued o in es iga e he in e -
play be ween he iden i ied discou ses. Pa icipan s’alignmen o misalignmen wi h discou ses
was add essed, and discu si e p ac ices o add essing se e al discou ses we e iden i ied. The
powe s uggle be ween discou ses was add essed by iden i ying which discou ses we e gi en
he mos legi imacy in each answe . Monologue is a ype o answe in which only one discou se
is exp essed, and all o he iews a e absen (Bax e , 2011). I se e al discou ses a e iden i ied in
one answe , hey o m a synch onic in e play, in which discou ses can ha e a coun e poin ela-
ionship o one ano he in h ee ways: nega ing,coun e ing, and en e aining. In nega ing, he
answe lines up wi h one discu si e posi ion, and he al e na i e meanings a e in oked only o
be e u ed. In coun e ing, one discou se is cen e ed, bu limi ed legi imacy is g an ed o he
al e na i e discou se(s). Coun e ing is o en cha ac e ized by pa icula lexical ma ke s ( e ms
such as “al hough,”“howe e ,”“bu ,”“e en,”and “only”) and ad e bials (e.g., su p isingly)
( o a ull lis , see Bax e , 2011). Finally, en e aining is in e play in which a ious discou ses
a e in play on an equal plane. I is o en ma ked by a one o ambi alence, one cha ac e ized by
ce ain lexical ma ke s (e.g., “may,”“migh ,”“could,”“
mus ,”and “ei he –o ”) (Bax e , 2011).
Some imes, he in e play b eaks ee om he polemic cen e ing and decen e ing o discou ses
and, as a esul , hyb ids (i.e., a e mix u es o wo o mo e discou ses ha no longe p esen he
o iginal discou ses as compe ing) o aes he ic momen s (i.e., ans o ma ions o wo o mo e dis-
cou ses in o a new o m whe e o iginal discou ses can no longe be iden i ied) eme ge
(Bax e , 2011). Such elemen s s and in con as wi h ypical exp essions because hey do no
ep oduce he coun e poin ela ionship be ween discou ses.
RESULTS
The i s goal o he s udy was o de e mine which discou ses o mo he hood can be iden i ied
om Finnish mo he s’desc ip ions. The induc i ely iden i ied hemes o he discou se a e
DISCURSIVE STRUGGLES WITH MOTHERHOOD 7
p esen ed in Table S2. Two o e a ching hemes ega ding pa en ing, consis ing o a ious sub-
hemes, we e iden i ied: (1) pa en ing is ewa ding, and (2) pa en ing is challenging. By ca ego-
izing he sub hemes ep esen ing hese wo o e a ching hemes in o la ge pa e ns, ou
discou ses we e iden i ied: he Equali y discou se, he Familis ic discou se, he In ensi e Mo h-
e ing discou se, and he Balance discou se.
Equali y discou se: Equal ea men and suppo om socie y ma e s especially
o amilies who di e ge om he no m
The Equali y discou se p esen ed pa en ing as a sha ed esponsibili y be ween pa en s. In his
discou se, he ewa ding aspec s o pa en hood we e a ibu ed o (1) sha ing esponsibili ies
be ween co-pa en s, (2) ha ing o he oles in li e apa om pa en hood, (3) ea ing pa en al
lea e as empo a y, and (4) ecei ing suppo om he co-pa en and socie y (see Table S2).
Fo example, Jenna (26 yea s, one child) explained as ollows:
[My] coping as a pa en is imp o ed by a spouse who is equal as a pa en and who
does housewo k so ha e e y hing does no all on my shoulde s, e en hough I s ay
a home wi h ou baby. (Jenna, Resou ces)
Jenna sugges ed ha pa en ing and housewo k a e equal esponsibili ies o mo he s and
a he s. This iew was accen ua ed wi h he wo d choice, ha is, p e e ing pa en o mo he .
She explained ha he e should be an equal di ision o household labo so ha “e e y hing
does no all on my shoulde s”like an a alanche. Su i (34 yea s, one child) w o e:
My g ea es joy is my child. I also app ecia e ha , in Finland, a mo he does no need
o gi e up wo king and being ac i e in socie y e en hough she has child en. I is
impo an ha my spouse ag ees [ ega ding] how he amily lea e is dis ibu ed
[be ween pa en s]. (Su i, Resou ces)
Su i app ecia ed ha mo he s can keep hei jobs and emain ac i e in socie y a e ha ing
child en. This was a esou ce o he . The wo d “mo he ”was used o explica e he ac ha
pa en s ace unequal expec a ions in socie y. Su i hin ed a he in e na ional con ex by s a ing
ha , in Finland, a mo he does no need o cease all o he ac i i ies (unlike in some o he coun-
ies). She p oposed ha pa en al lea e should be dis ibu ed be ween pa ne s by mu ual ag ee-
men , hus s essing hei equal s a us in his decision. Ka oliina (33 yea s, ou child en) w o e
he ollowing:
[I would like] suppo o he ela ionship as a couple, ime oge he , and espec o
he challenging jobs o bo h pa ne s. My s udies [a e a o m o suppo o me].
(Ka oliina, Suppo )
Ka oliina explained ha he p o essional li es o “bo h pa ne s”should be espec ed
equally. Via he wo d choice, she placed bo h he mo he and he a he as equally posi ioned
ega ding p o essional li e, implying ha women should no be expec ed o sac i ice mo e han
men o he sake o he amily. One sha ed ea u e o all hemes ha cons uc ed pa en ing as
ewa ding in he Equali y discou se was he nego ia ion o sha ed igh s and esponsibili ies.
The challenging aspec s o pa en hood in he Equali y discou se we e a ibu ed o
(1) inequali ies in socie y, (2) a lack o ecogni ion o di e en pa en s and amilies, (3) expec a-
ions ha do no i he pa en ’s own wishes, and (4) he inexpe ience o pa en s hemsel es.
Heidi (37 yea s, one child) s a ed he ollowing:
8JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
needs o pa en s, and his could be unde s ood as an a emp o al e a ious discou ses’powe
ela ions.
Second, he e we e many cases o coun e ing in he da a. Fo example, in Pinja’s
(31 yea s, one child) answe : “I am eally happy ha we ha e a small, lo ely daugh e , bu
hechangeinli ecameasasu p ise”(Pinja, O he ). He e, he In ensi e Mo he ing was he
dominan discou se, which was accompanied by he mo e ma ginal Balance discou se. Pinja
sugges ed ha , in addi ion o eeling happy, new pa en s may also be su p ised a how sig-
ni ican a change i is o ha e a child. This answe was hus discu si ely expansi e, no limi -
ing i sel o ep oducing he dominan discou se bu also legi ima ing an al e na i e
discou se. Typically, he In ensi e Mo he ing discou se was cen e edindiscu si ely ich
answe s, wi h a ew excep ions. In Ma i’s (30 yea s, wo child en) answe , he Familis ic dis-
cou se is cen e ed:
I lo e my amily abo e all. Doing hings oge he is g ea , and we a e a good eam
wi h my husband. Ou baby is ca ed o a home, and hanks o ou collabo a ion, we
bo h wo k o pay so ha we can cope inancially. I s ay a home mos o he ime,
bu I can also wo k so ha [my/ou ] income le el has no allen a e he [be e
compensa ed] pa en al allowance pe iod [be o e he ex ended pe iod ha is much
less compensa ed]. (Ma i, O he )
Desc ip ions o lo e and belonging in he amily we e p esen ed as essen ial in Ma i’s
answe , which ep esen ed he Familis ic discou se. Childca e a home, mos ly pe o med by
he mo he he sel , also ep esen ed he Familis ic discou se. Howe e , Ma i’s chance o wo k
was also p esen ed as impo an inancially. This could be unde s ood as pa o he Equali y
discou se, in which bo h pa ne s’wo k is p esen ed as aluable. Howe e , in his answe , he
discou ses we e no in a con lic ing ela ionship bu , a he , a complemen a y one: collabo a-
ion be ween pa ne s and a sepa a ion o ime a home and a wo k helped o manage seem-
ingly con adic o y discou ses. Th ough hese means, al e na i e discou ses we e legi ima ed,
which educed he powe o he dominan discou se.
Thi d, he answe s ha included en e aining we e ound in esponses o all ques ions. F e-
quen ly, hey ook he o m o a lis , ha is, ei he a lis o esou ces o a lis o he hings ha a
mo he should be able o do. Sanna (32 yea s, one child) lis s he ollowing:
[My esou ces a e] ollowing he de elopmen o my child, wi nessing he joy and
insigh s o my child, ecei ing suppo om people close o me, suppo om g and-
pa en s, s udying and success in my s udies, momen s when I can be alone and do my
own hings, quie ime, my ela ionship as a couple when we suppo each o he ,
b eaking e e yday ou ines wi h a ip o a museum o es au an . (Sanna,
Resou ces)
In he esponse, Sanna p esen ed he esou ces in e ms o he In ensi e Mo he ing (joy
ela ed o he child), he Familis ic (suppo om iends and g andpa en s, he couple’s ela-
ionship), he Equali y (s udies), and he Balance discou ses (soli ude and quie ime). One can-
no claim ha one idea is mo e impo an han ano he ; a he , hese discou ses unc ion on an
equal plane. Roosa (28 yea s, wo child en) desc ibes con adic o y emo ions:
I ha e su e ed om men al heal h p oblems/diseases since he bi h o my second
child, since 2008. I eel many con adic o y emo ions conce ning mo he hood and my
wo k as an en ep eneu . Con adic ions be ween my own needs o desi es and he
equi emen s o he en i onmen eel like a ne e -ending challenge and bu den.
(Roosa, O he )
DISCURSIVE STRUGGLES WITH MOTHERHOOD 15

Roosa began wi h he Balance discou se when desc ibing he men al heal h p oblems,
men ioning a condi ion ha a ec s he well-being in mo he hood and o he a eas o li e.
She con inued by con as ing mo he hood and wo k and desc ibed ha ing con adic o y
emo ions ha pulled he in di e en di ec ions. Con adic ions we e also desc ibed be ween
he mo he ’s own needs o desi es and he equi emen s o he en i onmen . E en hough
he desc ip ion did no explain hose p essu es in mo e de ail, i could be assumed ha
Roosa mean ha she pe cei es he sel as being p essu ed o be a pe ec mo he , which ep-
esen s he In ensi e Mo he ing discou se. Howe e , one could also in e p e his si ua ion
as in ol ing p essu e o wo k long hou s, which could ep esen he Equali y discou se,
ega ding he occupa ional success o women. I is no clea which e sion was he in ended
meaning o i Roosa mean bo h ypes o p essu e. Howe e , he own needs and desi es
we e desc ibed as in con adic ion wi h he equi emen s o he en i onmen . This ep e-
sen s he Balance discou se: a mo he mus ake ca e o he sel as she ca es o o he s. This
esponse had a one o ambi alence because no one discou se was emphasized abo e he
o he s.
Occasionally, he discu si e s uggle was empo a ily sol ed, and discu si e hyb ids
(i.e., mix u es o wo o mo e discou ses ha no longe p esen he o iginal discou ses
as compe ing) eme ged om he da a. The quali ies o he o iginal discou ses we e iden-
i iable, bu hei coexis ence o med a new meaning ha has analogously been
desc ibed as discu si e “salad d essing”(Bax e , 2011). Ka ja (38 yea s, ou child en)
explained:
I ha e always e u ned o he wo kplace [a e pa en al lea e] once he younges
in he amily eached abou 1 yea o age. My husband has a demanding job ha
occasionally equi es long s ays away [ om home]. Despi e his, i eels like ou
e e yday li e goes smoo hly and we ha e succeeded in combining a amily wi h
se e al child en and wo k. We sha e household cho es and childca e, and I eel
ha we enjoy ha ing ou child en. We spend a lo o ime wi h ou child en, bu
we also y o a ange ime oge he as a couple. Some imes, I hones ly wonde
why pa en ing is so o en expe ienced [by o he s] as di icul and challenging.
(Ka ja, O he )
In his example, Ka ja began wi h explaining ha , a e a 1-yea pe iod spen on
amily lea e on se e al occasions, she had always e u ned o he wo kplace. In one sen-
ence, she in oduced bo h he amily and he wo k as sphe es ha belong o he li e,
al hough di e en ly a di e en imes. She amed he wo k o he husband as challeng-
ing and equi ing long s ays away om home, which may mean ha she akes mos o
he esponsibili y o he child en and home ( he Familis ic discou se). Howe e , she
challenged his in e p e a ion and explained ha she and he husband di ide he house-
hold cho es and childca e. In hese i s sen ences, she hus balanced be ween he Equal-
i y discou se and he Familis ic discou se, which we e no amed as opposi es. On he
con a y, adop ing adi ional oles be ween spouses was amed as empo a y (pa en al
lea e and he husband s aying away a imes) and di e en om o he si ua ions in
which household cho es and childca e we e sha ed, which ep esen ed he Equali y dis-
cou se. La e , she asse ed ha he couple spends a g ea deal o ime wi h hei chil-
d en, an exp ession ep esen ing he In ensi e Pa en ing discou se. Time oge he as a
couple was no amed as opposi ional o ha ing ime o he child en, e en hough his
equi ed some ac i e “ ying” o a ange. Balancing he oles o mo he , wo ke , and
wi e was p esen ed as a scheduling decision: di e en oles we e cen al a di e en
imes. Ka ja had a happy one in he esponse, and in he end, she wonde ed why pa -
en ing was so o en expe ienced as challenging by o he s.
16 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
DISCUSSION
The aim o he p esen s udy was o analyze Finnish mo he s’mo he ing discou ses and in e -
play. As a esul o con apun al analysis, we iden i ied ou ypes o discou se and ound ha
hese in e played among one ano he in complex ways. The esul di e s om p e ious esea ch
in impo an ways. Speci ically, ou esea ch shows ha Finnish mo he ing discou ses may be
mo e a ied han p e iously hough (see, e.g., Pe älä-Li unen, 2018). Mo eo e , hey o en
occu in a coun e poin ela ionship o one ano he , o ming discu si e s uggles.
I has been p oposed ha he in ensi e mo he ing is he p e alen no m ega ding mo he -
hood in con empo a y Wes e n socie ies, pa icula ly in Whi e, p i ileged popula ions
(Gunde son & Ba e , 2015; Hays, 1996; Rizzo e al., 2013). This discou se is cons uc ed
a ound he idea ha he quali y o mo he ing is o essen ial impo ance in he de elopmen o
child en (Hays, 1996). In line wi h his p e ious esea ch, he In ensi e Mo he ing discou se
was also iden i ied in he p esen s udy. The inding is in line wi h ea lie Finnish esea ch (see
also Nä i, 2012; Pe älä-Li unen, 2007; Se 
on, 2007) sugges ing ha he In ensi e Mo he ing
discou se is hegemonic in he Finnish con ex . Howe e , he h ee o he iden i ied discou ses
( he Equali y, he Familis ic, and he Balance discou ses) se ed o nego ia e o di e en mean-
ings o mo he hood.
Ideologically, he discou se mos simila o he In ensi e Mo he ing was he Familis ic dis-
cou se, which is cons uc ed a ound he idea o he mo he as p ojec leade in he house. The
uni y o he amily and a good a mosphe e in i esembled wha Jallinoja (2006) iden i ied as
cen al o Mode n Familism. I could be a gued ha he Familis ic and he In ensi e Mo he -
ing discou ses a e de i ed om mu ually simila assump ions and should hus be ea ed as one
and he same discou se (see Hays, 1996). Howe e , sepa a ing he ideas behind hese discou ses
allows us o examine he cul u al shi s ha ha e been obse ed in women’s oles wi hin he
amily mo e p ecisely (G een, 2015). In he cu en esea ch, a ious hemes we e inco po a ed
in o hose discou ses o cons uc mo he hood as ewa ding and challenging. While he O icial
amilis ic ideology assumes ha women a e o p ima ily se e hei husbands and keep he am-
ily unc ioning, he In ensi e Mo he ing assumes ha women will pu hei child en o emos
and sac i ice hemsel es o hei child en’s happiness (G een, 2015). Howe e , bo h o hese
discou ses may be easy o adop o mo he s o in an s in Finland. Go e nmen subsidies o
pa en s/mo he s s aying a home may ha e impac ed how mo he s engaged wi h di e en dis-
cou ses, ein o cing ei he he Familis ic o he In ensi e Mo he ing discou ses. Thus, s uc u al
suppo can a ec how women hink and eel abou mo he hood and pa en ing.
Ou indings sugges ha Finnish mo he s mus ind a balance be ween a ious discu si e
cons uc ions o womanhood ha encompass bo h mo he hood and o he a eas o li e. Indeed,
he wo compe ing schemas sugges ed by Blai -Loy (2003) we e isible in discu si e s uggles in
he p esen esea ch as mo he s ied o posi ion hemsel es in ela ionship o bo h s andpoin s.
The impo ance o s udies, occupa ion, and ca ee was nego ia ed in he Equali y discou se,
which se ed o nego ia e accep ance o a mode n, ca ee - ocused, o sel - ul illing mo he ing
s yle and a ious amily o ms. This discou se was in line wi h he Finnish s a e’s o icial poli-
ics on equali y (Minis y o Social A ai s and Heal h, 2017), which a e buil on he ideal o
dual-ea ne amilies wi h equal childca e esponsibili ies o bo h pa en s. This expec a ion o
mo he s o wo k o pay is also simila o he expec a ions o Black mo he s in he
Uni ed S a es (Dow, 2016; Land y, 2000). This inding unde sco es he impo ance o s udying
mo he ing in di e en cul u al con ex s: Finnish mo he s’ esponses we e o en somehow posi-
ioned ega ding he Equali y discou se, ei he legi imizing o delegi imizing i .
Somewha unexpec edly, he Balance discou se, consis ing o acknowledgmen o and
espec o he mo he ’s pe sonal limi s, was also iden i ied. As he only discou se o explici ly
c ea e a gap be ween ideals and eali y, he Balance discou se in oduced a new amewo k o
cons uc ing mo he hood. The main ocus in his discou se was on balancing esou ces and
DISCURSIVE STRUGGLES WITH MOTHERHOOD 17
managing e e yday li e. Ch is ophe (2012) in oduced somewha simila ideas in he
Uni ed S a es by demons a ing ha wo k is some imes p esen ed as pe sonally bene icial o
he mo he , hus mo ing beyond he child-cen e ed assump ions o he In ensi e Mo he ing.
Howe e , in ou da a, he idea was b oade because i also encompassed many hemes, om
balancing he needs o all amily membe s o challenging he au ho i y o ca e p o essionals. In
ou sample, he Balance discou se could be in e p e ed as poli ical because i mos ly cen e ed
a ound nego ia ions o change, add essing he pe cei ed expec a ions o o he s. Mo he s com-
plained ha he expec a ions ega ding mo he hood we e o en se oo high, and hey conse-
quen ly o e ed an al e na i e amewo k o unde s anding mo he hood. Howe e , his ype o
discou se also con ibu ed new dimensions o he “ideal wo ke –ideal mo he ”dicho omy
(Blai -Loy, 2003). In he p esen s udy, mo he s seemed o al e na e be ween depic ions o he
“independen woman”and he ideal mo he , a he han be ween he “ideal wo ke ”and
he ideal mo he . In addi ion o wo k, hobbies, leisu e, and “me- ime”we e also men ioned in
he eplies.
The second aim o ou esea ch was o analyze he unc ions o he a ious discou ses and
hei in e play. Resea ch ha desc ibes he mul i ocali y o di e en discu si e esou ces in con-
s uc ing mo he hood is a e. The ew s udies ha ha e been ca ied ou (see, e.g., El in-
Nowak & Thomsson, 2001) ha e shown ha , in o de o ha e o he oles in li e apa om
mo he hood, women mus o en e ame he In ensi e Mo he ing discou se in a mo e lexible
way. A common heme o many s udies has been ha o en women ame paid wo k and o he
ac i i ies ha ake hem away om hei child en as ul ima ely bene icial o he child en
(Ch is ophe , 2012; Dow, 2016; El in-Nowak & Thomsson, 2001), jus i ying hei decisions.
The esul s o he p esen s udy a e in line wi h hese indings, showing ha mo he s ei he
ac i ely opposed he in ensi e mo he ing, e amed i s assump ions, o exp essed guil when no
pe o ming acco ding o i s s anda ds (see Guendouzi, 2006). Fo example, delega ing childca e
o o he s was amed in many ways in ou da a, some o hem mo e judgmen al and o he s
accep ing o a o able. Fu u e esea ch is needed o de e mine he ex en o which a he s use
simila jus i ica ions in coun ies whe e gende equali y is ad anced. I is sugges ed ha , in
Sweden, o example, in ensi e pa en ing applies o a he s as well as o mo he s
(Collins, 2019).
Ano he simila ea u e be ween ou da a and ha o Dow (2016) is ela ed o occupa ional
oles: mo he s el ha hey we e expec ed o wo k ou side he home and be inancially indepen-
den . Howe e , in Finland, i is ypical o mo he s o s ay a home o an ex ended ime a e
childbi h; among child en be ween 9 and 24 mon hs, 41% we e s ill ca ed o a home in 2020
(OSF, 2021). This p ac ice could con ibu e o he s a egy used by many mo he s: hey ea ed
ma e ni y lea e as a ime when gende ed oles we e accep able, in opposi ion o o he imes
when hey expec ed mo e equal oles. This s a egy is likely a con ibu ing ac o o he di e si y
o discou ses ha we e ound in Finnish mo he s’answe s. Howe e , a o ing one discou se a
one ime and o he discou ses a o he imes is a discu si e p ac ice ha allows o li le in e ac-
ion among discou ses. The likely consequence o his p ac ice is ha powe ela ions be ween
discou ses a e esis an o change. In he Finnish mo he ing con ex , his may mean ha domi-
nan discou ses such as he In ensi e Mo he ing and he Familis ic discou ses a e especially
powe ul o mo he s and ha hey become less so when/i he mo he e u ns o paid wo k.
Mo eo e , go e nmen -subsidized child home ca e allowances may con ibu e o he p ac ice o
compa men alizing discou ses by encou aging amilies o see home ca e pe iods as sepa a e
om o he pe iods in li e.
Ou indings sugges ha discu si e s uggles a e e y common in Finnish mo he hood dis-
cou se. In addi ion o he discu si e monologues p esen in some answe s, synch onic in e play
was mo e common and ealized h ough nega ing, coun e ing, and en e aining. Mo he s
add essed con en ional ways o de ining mo he hood when hey desc ibed pa en ing discus-
sions o he pas and he p esen ; hey also add essed he an icipa ed e alua ions o o he s when
18 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
p o iding jus i ica ions o hei own iews. Occasionally, discu si e hyb ids eme ged, and
he s uggle o meaning was empo a ily dissol ed. Discu si e s uggles mani es ed hem-
sel es among all o he ou discou ses, sugges ing ha Finnish mo he ing discou ses occu
in coun e poin o one ano he in mul iple and e ined ways. Howe e , he Balance dis-
cou se was usually iden i ied as a eques o change a he han a ully adop ed a i ude,
which may e lec he ela i ely powe less posi ion o mo he s in ega d o in luencing p e -
ailing cul u al concep s (Choi e al., 2005). This can be in e p e ed o e lec he unequal
playing ield o discou ses: some discou ses a e mo e powe ul han o he discou ses. In he
p esen esea ch p ojec , iden i ying he Balance discou se as a sepa a e discou se can be
unde s ood as an a emp o unde line he solu ions p oposed by he mo he s hemsel es o
alle ia e he con adic ions among ideologies.
A limi a ion o ou s udy was ha he sample consis ed o highly educa ed women and he
esul s could ha e been di e en in less ad an aged g oups. S ess ac o s, o example, may be
di e en in di e en g oups o mo he s (e.g., less educa ed mo he s may ha e mo e inancial
conce ns). In pa icula , i would be in e es ing o s udy he Balance discou se u he . I is pos-
sible ha he e a e di e ences among g oups o mo he s o si ua ions whe e his discou se is
p oduced. Fo example, amily size o e hnic g oup may a ec he discou se. Howe e , he
mo he s in he p esen esea ch p oduced ich da a, which is a s eng h o he s udy. Fu he -
mo e, in es iga ing powe ela ions among discou ses p o ides in e es ing and aluable insigh s
abou mo he hood. In u u e esea ch, i could also be insigh ul o also s udy samples ha
somehow de ia e om he no m, such as sexual mino i ies, poo mo he s, adop i e mo he s,
immig a ed mo he s, and disabled mo he s, bo h in he Finnish con ex and in e na ionally.
S udying a he s and mo he s o olde child en could p o ide aluable in o ma ion on he
powe ela ions be ween discou ses.
O e all, he p esen s udy di ec s he a en ion om iden i ying mo he hood discou ses o
unde s anding hei powe ela ions and in e play and his way expands p e ious knowledge o
mo he hood discou ses. The indings sugges ha Finnish mo he s use complex nego ia ions o
na iga e h ough pe sonal and cul u al discou ses o mo he hood. Howe e , cul u al idealiza-
ions o mo he hood may be a signi ican sou ce o s ess o many mo he s and may be di icul
o esis . The indings can acili a e an unde s anding o he cul u al en i onmen o Finnish
mo he ing and may be use ul when planning pa en al suppo p og ams ha aim o balance
con adic o y emo ions. Fo example, ealizing ha cul u al expec a ions a e con adic o y
may educe he p essu e o mo he s o adhe e o pe ec ionis s anda ds. The esul s can be
applied o counseling and clinical p ac ice, especially when wo king wi h mo he s’pa en ing
s ess. Hope ully, he indings can also be u ilized in o he cul u es whe e simila con adic o y
p essu es o pa en s a e p esen .
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The au ho s decla e no con lic o in e es .
ORCID
Mi jam Raudasoja h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-4680-9708
Ma ilda So kkila h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-2144-1767
Aa no Lai ila h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-0865-520X
Kaisa Aunola h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0001-8866-6736
REFERENCES
Abe z, J., & Moo e, J. (2018). “Welcome o he mommy wa s, ladies”: Making sense o he ideology o comba i e mo h-
e ing in mommy blogs. Communica ion, Cul u e & C i ique,11(2), 265–281. h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/ccc/ cy008
DISCURSIVE STRUGGLES WITH MOTHERHOOD 19
Aunola, K., & So kkila, M. (2018). Vanhemmuuden oima a a- ja kuo mi us ekijä - u kimushanke (VoiKu). Ongoing
esea ch p ojec . Uni e si y o Jy äskylä.
Ba nes, R. J. D. (2008). Black women ha e always wo ked: Is he e a wo k– amily con lic among he Black middle
class? In E. Rudd & L. Desca es (Eds.), The changing landscape o wo k and amily in he Ame ican middle class:
Repo s om he ield (pp. 189–209). Lexing on Books.
Bax e , L. A. (2011). Voicing ela ionships. Sage.
Bax e , L. A., & No wood, K. (2015). Rela ional dialec ics in heo y. In D. O. B ai hwai e & P. Sch od (Eds.), Engag-
ing heo ies in in e pe sonal communica ion (2nd ed.). Sage.
Bax e , L. A., Scha p, K. M., & Thomas, L. J. (2021). O iginal oices. Rela ional dialec ics heo y. Jou nal o Family
Theo y & Re iew,13(1), 7–20. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j .12405
Blai -Loy, M. (2003). Compe ing de o ions: Ca ee and amily among women execu i es. Ha a d Uni e si y P ess.
B aun, V., & Cla ke, V. (2006). Using hema ic analysis in psychology. Quali a i e Resea ch in Psychology,3(2),
77–101.
Choi, P., Henshaw, C., Bake , S., & T ee, J. (2005). Supe mum, supe wi e, supe e e y hing: Pe o ming eminini y in
he ansi ion o mo he hood. Jou nal o Rep oduc i e and In an Psychology,23(2), 167–180. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1080/02646830500129487
Ch is ophe , K. (2012). Ex ensi e mo he ing: Employed mo he s’cons uc ions o he good mo he . Gende & Socie y,
26(1), 73–96. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0891243211427700
Collins, C. (2019). Making mo he hood wo k: How women manage ca ee s and ca egi ing. P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
Co e , D., He msen, J. M., & Vanneman, R. (2011). The end o he gende e olu ion? Gende ole a i udes om 1977
o 2008. Ame ican Jou nal o Sociology,117(1), 259–289. h ps://doi.o g/10.1086/658853
Douglas, S. J., & Michaels, M. W. (2004). The mommy my h: The idealiza ion o mo he hood and how i has unde mined
all women. F ee P ess.
Dow, D. M. (2016). In eg a ed mo he hood: Beyond hegemonic ideologies o mo he hood. Jou nal o Ma iage and
Family,78, 180–196. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/jom .12264
Ellingsæ e , A. L., & Lei a, A. (2006). Poli icising pa en hood in Scandina ia: Gende ela ions in wel a e s a es. Policy
P ess.
El in-Nowak, Y., & Thomsson, H. (2001). Mo he hood as idea and p ac ice: A discu si e unde s anding o employed
mo he s in Sweden. Gende & Socie y,15(3), 407–428. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/089124301015003005
England, P. (2010). The gende e olu ion: Une en and s alled. Gende & Socie y,24(2), 149–166. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1177/0891243210361475
Gilbe , N. (2008). A mo he ’s wo k. How eminism, he ma ke , and policy shape amily li e. Yale Uni e si y P ess.
G een, F. J. (2015). Re-concep ualising mo he hood: Reaching back o mo e o wa d. Jou nal o Family S udies,21(3),
196–207. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/13229400.2015.1086666
Guendouzi, J. (2006). “The guil hing”: Balancing domes ic and p o essional oles. Jou nal o Ma iage and Family,
68(4), 901–909. h ps://www.js o .o g/s able/4122883
Gunde son, J., & Ba e , A. (2015). Emo ional cos s o emo ional suppo ? The associa ion be ween in ensi e mo he -
ing and psychological well-being in midli e. Jou nal o Family Issues,38(7), 992–1009. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/
0192513X15579502
Hays, S. (1996). The cul u al con adic ions o mo he hood. Yale Uni e si y P ess.
Hende son, A., Ha mon, S., & Newman, H. (2016). The p ice mo he s pay, e en when hey a e no buying i : Men al
heal h consequences o idealized mo he hood. Sex Roles,74(11–12), 512–526. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11199-015-
0534-5
Ho s ede, G. (2001). Cul u e’s consequences: Compa ing alues, beha io s, ins i u ions and o ganiza ions ac oss na ions.
Sage.
Jallinoja, R. (2006). Pe heen as aisku: Familis is a käänne ä jälji ämässä [The Family s ikes back: In sea ch o he
amilis ic u n]. Gaudeamus.
KELA (The Social Insu ance Ins i u e o Finland). (2021). Child ca e allowances. h ps://www.kela. i/web/en/child-ca e-
allowances
Knigh , C. R., & B in on, M. C. (2017). One egali a ianism o se e al? Two decades o gende - ole a i ude change in
Eu ope. Ame ican Jou nal o Sociology,122(5), 1485–1532. h ps://doi.o g/10.1086/689814
Lammi-Taskula, J. (2007). Pa en al lea e o a he s? Gende ed concep ions and p ac ices in amilies wi h young child en
in Finland. S akes. h p://u n. i/u n:isbn:978-951-44-7122-3
Land y, B. (2000). Black wo king wi es: Pionee s o he Ame ican amily e olu ion. Uni e si y o Cali o nia P ess.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Na u alis ic inqui y. Sage.
Mää ä, K., & Uusiau i, S. (2012). How do he Finnish amily policy and ea ly educa ion sys em suppo he well-
being, happiness, and success o amilies and child en? Ea ly Child De elopmen and Ca e,182(3–4), 291–298.
Me ce , R. T. (2004). Becoming a mo he e sus ma e nal ole a ainmen . Jou nal o Nu sing Schola ship,36(3),
226–232.
Minis y o Social A ai s and Heal h. (2017). Go e nmen ac ion plan o gende equali y 2016–2019. h p://u n. i/URN:
ISBN:978-952-00-3951-6.
20 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY

Moo e, J., & Abe z, J. (2016). “Uh oh. Cue he [new] mommy wa s”: The ideology o comba i e mo he ing in popula
U.S. newspape a icles abou a achmen pa en ing. Sou he n Communica ion Jou nal,81(1), 49–62.
Nä i, J. (2012). Nego ia ing ca e and ca ee wi hin ins i u ional cons ain s –Wo k insecu i y and gende ed ideals o
pa en hood in Finland. Communi y, Wo k & Family,15(4), 451–470. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/13668803.2012.
724827
O icial S a is ics o Finland. (2018). Educa ional s uc u e o popula ion. S a is ics Finland. h p://www.s a . i/ il/ kou /
2018/ kou _2018_2019-11-05_ ie_001_en.h ml
O icial S a is ics o Finland. (2019a). Families. S a is ics Finland. h p://www.s a . i/ il/pe h/2019/pe h_2019_2020-05-
22_ ie_001_en.h ml
O icial S a is ics o Finland (2019b). Labou o ce su ey. Employmen and unemploymen in 2019. S a is ics Finland.
h p://www.s a . i/ il/ y i/2019/13/ y i_2019_13_2020-05-07_ka _002_en.h ml
O icial S a is ics o Finland (2021). Kelan lapsipe he-e uus ilas o 2020. Helsinki: Kela. h ps://helda.helsinki. i/bi s eam/
handle/10138/330043/Kelan_lapsipe he_e uus ilas o_2020.pd ?sequence=3&isAllowed=y.
Öun, I. (2012). Wo k- amily con lic in he No dic coun ies: A compa a i e analysis. Jou nal o Compa a i e Family
S udies,43(2), 165–184.
Pe älä-Li unen, S. (2007). Gende equali y o p imacy o he mo he ? Ambi alen desc ip ions o good pa en s. Jou nal
o Ma iage and Family,69, 341–351. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00369.x
Pe älä-Li unen, S. (2018). Childca e and wo k: Explo ing he iews o Finnish mo he s and a he s. Communi y,
Wo k & Family,21(2), 209–225. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/13668803.2016.1274289
Rich, A. (1995). O woman bo n: Mo he hood as expe ience and ins i u ion (Pape back ed., eissued). No on.
Rizzo, K., Schi in, H., & Liss, M. (2013). Insigh in o he pa en hood pa adox: Men al heal h ou comes o in ensi e
mo he ing. Jou nal o Child and Family S udies,22(5), 614–620. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10826-012-9615-z
Segu a, D. A. (1992). Chicanas in whi e-colla jobs: “You ha e o p o e you sel mo e”.Sociological Pe spec i es,
35(1), 163–182. h ps://www.js o .o g/s able/1389373
Seie s ad, C., & Healy, G. (2012). Women’s equali y in he Scandina ian academy: A dis an d eam? Wo k, Employ-
men and Socie y,26(2), 296–313. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0950017011432918
Se 
on, E. (2007). Na a ing ambi alence o ma e nal esponsibili y. Sociological Resea ch Online,12(2), 30–42. h ps://
doi.o g/10.5153/s o.1527
Su e , E. A., & No wood, K. (2017). C i ical heo izing in amily communica ion s udies: (Re) eading ela ional dialec-
ics heo y 2.0. Communica ion Theo y,27(3), 290–308. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/com .12117
Wo ld Economic Fo um. (2010). The global gende gap epo 2010. Wo ld Economic Fo um. h ps://www.we o um.
o g/ epo s/global-gende -gap- epo -2010
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Addi ional suppo ing in o ma ion may be ound in he online e sion o he a icle a he pub-
lishe ’s websi e.
How o ci e his a icle: Raudasoja, M., So kkila, M., Lai ila, A., & Aunola, K. (2022). “I
eel many con adic o y emo ions”: Finnish mo he s’discu si e s uggles wi h
mo he hood. Jou nal o Ma iage and Family,1–21. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/jom .12828
DISCURSIVE STRUGGLES WITH MOTHERHOOD 21