45
Socialinė eo ija, empi ija, poli ika i p ak ika ISSN 1648-2425 eISSN 2345-0266
2026, ol. 32, pp. 45–58 DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.15388/STEPP.2026.32.3
The Me is E ec : The Subjec i e Ca ee
C a ing o Wo king Mo he s
Ma ian C owley-Hen y
Maynoo h Uni e si y School o Business, I eland
Email: [email p o ec ed]
h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0001-9207-0863
h ps:// o .o g/048n jm95
Abs ac . By using he me apho o Me is, his pape explo es – h ough a eminis s andpoin heo y lens –
how women’s wo k iden i y may be o e shadowed by hei mo he hood iden i y in he ubiqui ous pa ia chal
neolibe al con ex , and how women seek o o e come he cons ain s imposed on hem in hei pa adoxical
oles as mo he -wo ke s by ca ee c a ing. D awing on he whole-li e concep ualiza ion o ca ee s whe e a
ca ee includes he wo k and nonwo k domains wi hin which jobs and paid wo k expe iences un old, his pape
explo es he subjec i e ca ee c a ing o mo he s (suppo ed ia he Me is me apho ) in hei li ed pe o mance
o he socie ally con lic ing oles o a good employee and a good mo he , mo ing wi hin and be ween wo k
and nonwo k social spaces. Ca ee c a ing conside s he cogni i e, ask, and ela ional ac i i ies ha can
be agen ially ailo ed o bes i one’s ca ee wi hin he demands o one’s di e en oles. Mo he s’ complex,
pa adoxical, and bounda y-c ossing posi ions in he wo k–nonwo k domain a e conside ed in ligh o ca ee
c a ing li e a u e and he Me is me apho .
Keywo ds: Ca ee c a ing, mo he s, eminis s andpoin heo y, wo k, Me is.
In oduc ion
In con empo a y neolibe al Wes e n socie y, he pas o y yea s ha e p oduced con lic-
ing socio-cul u al ‘ad ice’ o wo king women and mo he s, anging om ‘ha ing i all’
(Gu ley B own, 1982), o ‘op ing ou ’ (Belkin, 2003), o ‘leaning in’ (Sandbe g, 2013),
all he while igno ing he pa ia chal s uc u al ba ie s and simul aneously blaming wo-
men o ailing o ake owne ship o hei ole and s a us as mo he -wo ke s. The com-
plex na u e o an indi idual’s ca ee wi hin a social con ex is con ingen on a numbe
o elemen s, wi h he con ex and s uc u es playing an impo an pa in he indi idual’s
(agency) decision p ocesses. Giddens’ (1979; 1993a) s uc u a ion heo y s esses he
in e dependence be ween human agency ( he ac o s) and he unde lying social s uc u e
Con en s lis s a ailable a Vilnius Uni e si y P ess
Recei ed: 2024 12 04. Accep ed: 2025 01 16.
Copy igh © 2025 Ma ian C owley-Hen y. Published by Vilnius Uni e si y P ess. This is an Open Access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he
C ea i e Commons A ibu ion Licence, which pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal au ho
and sou ce a e c edi ed.
This concep ual pape was de eloped wi h he unding suppo om “Mo he Ne ”, he Eu opean Union’s
Ho izon 2020 esea ch and inno a ion p og amme, unde g an ag eemen No 952366.
46
ISSN 1648-2425 eISSN 2345-0266 Socialinė eo ija, empi ija, poli ika i p ak ika
shaping socie y (s uc u e) in he accep ed ways o doing hings. Giddens a gues ha a
social sys em can be unde s ood by i s s uc u e ( o med by he ules and esou ces in
o ce and a ailable o agen s), modali y ( he means o ansla ing s uc u es in o ac ion),
and in e ac ion (be ween he agen s ac ing wi hin he social sys em). “Socie y only has
o m, and ha o m only has e ec s on people, in so a as s uc u e is p oduced and
ep oduced in wha people do” (Giddens & Pie son, 1998: 77).
The p oblema iza ion o mo he hood and wo k combina ions in his pape , while
inco po a ing s uc u e and agency in e ac ions in mo he s’ ca ee sys em, ollows Fou-
caul ’s (1984) usage o he e m p oblema iza ion o desc ibe “ hinking as a p ac ice”
(Bacchi, 2012: 1) o a “s a egy o de eloping a c i ical consciousness” (Mon e o &
Sonn, 2009: 80); a means o dis up ing widely accep ed u hs (F ei e, 1972). Following
Foucaul ’s analy ical me hod o “ hinking p oblema ically” (1977: 185–186) and desc i-
bed by Bacchi (2012: 1), “whe e he poin o analysis is no o look o he one co ec
esponse o an issue bu o examine how i is “ques ioned, analyzed, classi ied and egu-
la ed” a “speci ic imes and unde speci ic ci cums ances” (Deacon, 2000: 127), he aim
is no o gene alize o ad ise bu a he o conside and o encou age b oade p oblema-
iza ions in ela ion o he combina ion o mo he hood and paid wo k oles.
This pape concep ually conside s mo he -wo ke s’ indi idual ca ee c a ing (Tims
& Akke mans, 2020) amids pa ia chal s uc u es and cul u al expec a ions ha p esen
unde lying implici no ms o accep able beha io s o mo he -wo ke s on women. I
conside s he enego ia ion o hei ca ee s ha mo he s unde ake in ligh o hei pa al-
lel and blended ole iden i ies. In p oblema izing p ac ices ha con e concep ualiza ions
o a good mo he /good wo ke , he ocus is on he elemen s o he ca ee c a ing heo y
ha come o he o e on o mo he s when na iga ing mo he -wo ke iden i ies. This
is in keeping wi h Foucaul ’s (1988: 257) desc ip ion o p oblema iza ion as “ he se o
discu si e and non-discu si e p ac ices ha makes some hing en e in o he play o he
ue and he alse and cons i u es i as an objec o hough (whe he unde he o m o
mo al e lec ion, scien i ic knowledge)”.
Nex , he on ological, epis emological and me hodological posi ioning o his s udy
is sha ed, explica ing he au ho ’s posi ionali y in he esea ch ( he eminis s andpoin
heo y), and he me apho o Me is1. The Me is concep ualiza ion is p esen ed wi h he
implica ions o he esea ch ques ion, speci ically, “How do women nego ia e combining
wo king ca ee s and mo he hood in a o eign cul u e?” Then, his pape se s abou p e-
sen ing he heo e ical unde pinning o he whole-li e desc ip ion o ca ee s (Li ano &
Majo , 2016), and he co esponding ele ance o ca ee c a ing (Tims & Akke mans,
2020) as a e lexi e, subjec i e p ocess combining ask and ela ionship dimensions in
o de o be e li e he compe ing oles o a good mo he – a good wo ke wi hin he
1 Me is was a G eek goddess and he i s wi e o Zeus. She was known o he wisdom and cle e ness.
Howe e , she was de ou ed by Zeus due o he condi ion o impending mo he hood since i had been o e-
old ha she would yield an hei mo e powe ul han Zeus. Howe e , Me is p e ailed despi e ad e si y when
he child A hena was bi hed as a ully a mo ed wa io .
47
Ma ian C owley-Hen y.
The Me is E ec : The Subjec i e Ca ee C a ing o Wo king Mo he s
con ines o compe ing social spaces (wo k e sus nonwo k). Finally, sugges ions o
u he esea ch a e sha ed.
App oach, Me hod and Analysis
This concep ual pape and i s e lec ions a e g ounded in he in e p e i is pa adigm
(Bu ell & Mo gan, 1979; Eas e by-Smi h e al., 2002) and ounded on a ela i is ic
on ological pe spec i e, which acknowledges he exis ence o di e se and mul iple
iewpoin s on he wo ld ha canno be educed o a single, uni e sal u h (Willig, 2013).
In he in e p e i is pa adigm, idiog aphic me hodologies (Bu ell & Mo gan, 1979: 6)
a e analyzed holis ically in he social con ex . The subjec i ism o he esea ch, whe eby
he in es iga o empa hizes wi h he esea ch subjec s and akes accoun o he en i on-
men – o “subjec s’ meaning and in e p e a ional sys ems in o de o gain explana ion
by unde s anding” (Gill & Johnson, 1991: 37) – is pa amoun . Unde s anding he indi-
idual pe spec i e is in eg al o be e unde s anding o hei espec i e ca ee c a ing
(Tims & Akke mans, 2020); ha is, o be e unde s and he beha io s and ac ions ha
a e unde aken by mo he s o idiosync a ically c a hei ca ee s o bes accommoda e
and i hei li es and oles.
Fo he pu poses o his concep ual pape , he ocus is on wo king mo he s’ ca ee
c a ing wi hin he dis inc bu o e lapping social spaces o wo k and nonwo k, whe e
suppo s uc u es and agen ial beha io s ha may bes accommoda e he na iga ion o
bo h paid wo k esponsibili ies and mo he ing esponsibili ies a e conside ed. A quali-
a i e empi ical esea ch app oach is ecommended o u he explo e he concep uali-
za ion ha is p esen ed, gi en he ichness and s eng hs o ha app oach o explo ing
complex indi idual subjec i i ies (see O’B ien, Kačku ė, & C owley-Hen y, 2025).
Acco ding o he p inciples o he eminis s andpoin , ou meaning-making is in luen-
ced by ou social si ua edness (Ka am & A iouni, 2021). Following a eminis s andpoin
epis emology (Smi h, 2005; Smy he, 2009), he li ed, expe ien ial knowledge which
has de e mined he wo ld pe spec i e o he esea che is an in eg al componen when
in e p e ing and making sense o da a, pa icula ly da a in ela ion o mino i ies (see also
C owley-Hen y, Almeida, Be one, & Gunaseka a, 2025). I is he e o e impo an o
he esea che as an academic concep ualize in his pape o p o ess he own s andpoin ,
as a mo he -wo ke wi hin he academic pa ia chal s uc u e, which implici ly colo s he
concep ualiza ion o mo he s’ ca ee c a ing ac oss wo k–nonwo k domains. Fu he -
mo e, he eminis s andpoin epis emology main ains ha mino i ies and ma ginalized
g oups a e socially si ua ed in ways ha allow hem o o en ha e a deepe o clea e
awa eness o ce ain issues because o hei posi ion in socie y, which allows hem o see
hings ha he dominan g oups migh o e look. As a emale mo he -wo ke , he au ho
o his pape has wo ked h ough he own social si ua edness in he concep ualiza ion o
mo he -wo ke ca ee c a ing suppo s and beha io s, d awing on he own mo he -wo -
ke expe iences. He s andpoin is also colo ed by he pas esea ch unde akings in his
48
ISSN 1648-2425 eISSN 2345-0266 Socialinė eo ija, empi ija, poli ika i p ak ika
a ea (C owley-Hen y, Almeida, Be one, & Gunaseka a, 2025; C owley-Hen y & Wei ,
2007; O’B ien, Kačku ė, & C owley-Hen y, 2025).
Finally, eminis s andpoin heo is s also posi ha esea ch on powe ela ions
should begin wi h he li ed expe iences o he ma ginalized in o de o p esen phenome-
na om he inside , ma ginalized posi ion. Sand a Ha ding’s (1993) concep o ‘s ong
objec i i y’ sugges s ha esea ch ha d aws om ma ginalized s andpoin s can p o ide
mo e igo ous knowledge han ha om p i ileged, pa ia chal, he e o-no ma i e po-
si ions when examining powe ela ions. Simila ly, i ollows ha mo he s’ posi ions
would bes be in e p e ed by ellow mo he s, also g appling wi h combining mo he -
hood and paid employmen . This posi ionali y is a he cen e o he in e p e a ions pu
o wa d he e o p oblema ize he sel -imposed ole pe cep ions and cul u ally in o med
ole expec a ions o mo he s in paid employmen . Mo eo e , eminis s andpoin heo y
highligh s he powe imbalance ha esul s om pa ia chal s uc u es ha ha e been de-
eloped and nu u ed o sub e emale p og ession in senio le els o wo k esponsibi-
li ies and au ho i ies. Feminis s andpoin heo y calls eminis s o spo ligh inequali ies
and inequi ies in o de o b eak down pa ia chal impedimen s o women’s equal igh s
and equi able employmen oppo uni ies.
The Me is E ec – Me apho o Me is o Mo he -Wo ke s
This pape p oposes ha he me apho o Me is may be an app op ia e me apho o
explo e he p oblema iza ion (Foucaul , 1984) o mo he hood and i s associa ion wi h
paid employmen . Who is Me is? In G eek my hology (Almog, 2022; Theoi P ojec ,
2023), Me is was a goddess ha bo e Zeus’ ( he god o gods) daugh e , A hena. Due o a
p ophesy e ealed o Zeus ha Me is would bea him a son ha would be g ea e han he
was, Zeus de ou ed/swallowed Me is whole while she was in he me amo phous s a e o
a ly/insec . Me is was, he e o e, de ou ed by Zeus because o he ma e nal condi ion
ha could b ing abou a challenge o Zeus’ powe ul posi ion. Howe e , Me is su i ed
and li ed inside Zeus’ head, gi ing bi h o A hena – he powe ul goddess o wisdom
and mili a y ic o y in G eek my hology – whom Me is nu u ed and equipped wi h a ms
and a mo o p o ec he , be o e she was eleased om Zeus’ head. Me is’ sel -endu ance
and ma e nal p o ec ion o he daugh e is no ed. Ye , Me is is ba ely men ioned in G eek
my hology as an en i y in he own igh bu is only alluded o as an aspec o Zeus and as
he mo he o A hena, he eby shadowed by hei exis ence.
The Me is me apho may be ap o explo ing mo he -wo ke s’ ca ee c a ing expe i-
ences, as women’s subjec i e nego ia ion o he compe ing ole pe cep ions hey occupy
as mo he s engaged in paid employmen , and he ole expec a ions hey expe ience om
o he s in hei socie y. As such, ollowing he Me is me apho , o wha ex en a e mo he -
wo ke s conside ed o be (by o he s/socie y and by hemsel es, as in e p e ed h ough
he s uc u es he wo king mo he s encoun e in hei day- o-day beha io s and ac i i-
ies) p e iously p oduc i e women ha – socio-cul u ally – a e o pe cei ed o become
de ou ed by mo he hood and exponen ially o e shadowed by pa ia chy? Howe e , in
49
Ma ian C owley-Hen y.
The Me is E ec : The Subjec i e Ca ee C a ing o Wo king Mo he s
keeping wi hin he ein o eminis s andpoin heo y which acknowledges he gende
powe imbalance, mo he -wo ke s, like Me is, emain esilien and impe ishable despi e
he challenges imposed on hem by he male pa ia chy, and ul ima ely endu e in pu su-
ing hei combined mo he -wo ke oles h ough subjec i e ca ee c a ing. They do his
while nego ia ing pa adoxical domains, which hei male, a he -wo ke coun e pa s do
no na iga e o ha e o manage o he same ex en due o he socio-cul u al no ms placed
on mo he s o unde ake he bulk o he mo he ing wo k (Ha sock, 2016).
Whole-Li e Ca ee and Ca ee C a ing
Hughes (1937, 413) desc ibes ca ee s as embedded in socie y; ha “a s udy o ca ee s –
o he mo ing pe spec i e in which pe sons o ien hemsel es wi h e e ence o he soci-
al o de , and o he ypical sequences and conca ena ions o o ice – may be expec ed o
e eal he na u e and ‘wo king cons i u ion’ o a socie y”. His in e p e a ion o ca ee s
p esen s a ca ee as a ‘mo ing pe spec i e’ which is in luenced by and, in e u n, impac s
upon indi idual iden i y (“in which pe sons o ien hemsel es”) and social iden i y (“so-
cial o de ”). I is his b oade , whole-li e desc ip ion o ca ee s (Li ano & Majo , 2016)
ha is conside ed in his esea ch unde aking. In keeping wi h Hughes’ (1937) concep-
ualiza ion o ca ee s as including pe sonal, li e occu ences, nonwo k and leisu e oles
“ ha o m a unique pa e n o e he indi idual’s li espan” (Sulli an & Ba uch, 2009:
1543), his s udy ocuses on he combina ion o mo he hood and employee oles in e-
la ion o indi iduals’ ca ee s. Gi en he uniqueness o each indi idual’s ca ee unde his
pe sonal, dynamic desc ip ion, a emp s o gene alize ca ee ou comes o e ime a e no
a emp ed, bu a he conside a ion is gi en o concep ualizing ca ee c a ing elemen s
o mo he -wo ke s.
Hughes (1937, 413) con inues ha
A ca ee consis s, objec i ely, o a se ies o s a uses and clea ly de ined o ices <…> subjec i-
ely, a ca ee is he mo ing pe spec i e in which he pe son sees his li e as a whole and in-
e p e s he meaning o his a ious a ibu es, ac ions, and he hings ha happen o him <…>
Ca ee s in ou socie y a e hough e y much in e ms o jobs, o hese a e he cha ac e is ic
and c ucial connec ions o he indi idual wi h he ins i u ional s uc u e <…> Bu he ca ee is
by no means exhaus ed in a se ies o business and p o essional achie emen s. The e a e o he
poin s a which one’s li e ouches he social o de <…> i is possible o ha e a ca ee in an
a oca ion as well as in a oca ion.
Bo h objec i e (e.g., i le, sala y) and subjec i e (e.g., pe sonal de elopmen , wo k-li-
e balance) ca ee success is ele an he e (Heslin, 2005), inco po a ing o he li e e en s
and lea ning in o unde s anding ca ee s. Pa on and McMahon (1999; 2006a; 2006b)
adop Wol e and Kolb’s (1980: 1–2) de ini ion o ca ee de elopmen which aligns wi h
he Hughes’ (1937) whole-li e ca ee pe spec i e:
Ca ee de elopmen in ol es one’s whole li e, no jus occupa ion. As such, i conce ns he
whole pe son, needs and wan s, capaci ies and po en ials, exci emen s and anxie ies, insigh s
50
ISSN 1648-2425 eISSN 2345-0266 Socialinė eo ija, empi ija, poli ika i p ak ika
and blind spo s, wa s and all. Mo e han ha , i conce ns his/he li e. The en i onmen p essu-
es and cons ain s, he bonds ha ie him/he o signi ican o he s, esponsibili ies o child en
and aging pa en s, he o al s uc u e o one’s ci cums ances a e also ac o s ha mus be
unde s ood and eckoned wi h, in hese e ms, ca ee de elopmen and pe sonal de elopmen
con e ge. Sel and ci cums ances – e ol ing, changing, un olding in mu ual in e ac ion –
cons i u e he ocus and he d ama o ca ee de elopmen .
I is in his ein o he ‘whole-li e’ conno a ion o ca ee (Li ano & Majo , 2016) ha
his p esen esea ch ocuses (see also Sua ez-Bilbao e al., 2023). Ca ee c a ing, in e-
la ion o he ‘whole-li e’ ca ee , ocuses on he p oac i e, agen ial ca ee e lec ions and
ela ed ca ee cons uc ions (Sa ickas, 1997; Sa ickas & Po eli, 2012) o e a pe son’s
li e (Akke mans & Tims, 2017; De Vos, e al., 2017; Sua ez-Bilbao e al., 2023; Tims &
Akke mans, 2020; an Leeuwen e al., 2021). De eloping W zesniewski and Du on’s
(2001: 179) ‘job c a ing’, whe e “employees c a hei jobs by changing cogni i e,
ask, and/o ela ional bounda ies o shape in e ac ions and ela ionships wi h o he s a
wo k, <…> which, in u n, al e s wo k meanings and wo k iden i y”, ‘ca ee c a ing’
may be cons ued as he subjec i e, p oac i e econs uc ion o one’s whole-li e ca ee
ollowing p oac i e ca ee e lec ions (Janssen e al., 2021; Sua ez-Bilbao e al., 2023;
Tims & Akke mans, 2020).
Tims and Akke mans (2020: 175–176) de ine ca ee c a ing as he “p oac i e be-
ha io s ha indi iduals pe o m o sel -manage hei ca ee and a e aimed a a aining
op imal pe son-ca ee i ”. I equi es he indi idual o p oac i ely seek ou oppo uni ies
and expe iences ha co espond wi h hei whole-li e ca ee p io i ies (Lee e al., 2021),
he eby shaping he b oade ajec o y and di ec ion o hei ca ee o e ime (De Vos e
al., 2019; Tims & Akke mans, 2020). Ca ee c a ing includes p oac i e ca ee e lec ion
(ques ioning one’s mo i es and p io i ies wi h ega d o he whole-li e desc ip ion o
ca ee s) and p oac i e ca ee cons uc ion ( he ac ual beha io s ha a e pu in mo ion
in esponse o one’s ca ee e lec ions) (Sua ez-Bilbao e al., 2023; Tims & Akke mans,
2020).
In he con ex o his concep ual pape , ca ee c a ing e e s o he subjec i e, e -
lexi e meaning-making and iden i y e ocusing o wo king mo he s o bes combine
he oles o a good mo he /good wo ke . Ca ee c a ing, in alignmen wi h ‘job c a -
ing’ (W zesniewski & Du on, 2001), conside s he h ee a eas ha can be c a ed and
eshaped – he cogni i e, ask and ela ional bounda ies – ac oss wo k and nonwo k
domains in o de o acili a e he indi idual’s bes ca ee -wo k i o hei pa icula
ci cums ances. He e, mo he s adap he cogni i e (ca ee e lec ions), ask (wo k ocus/
pa en ing ocus combina ion), and ela ional bounda ies ( o hei pa ne s, ex ended a-
mily membe s, wo k colleagues and o he s) in hei li e con ex s in o de o be e se ice
he ole con lic s o a good wo ke /good mo he . Ca ee c a ing is he agen ial p ocess
ha mo he s unde ake o e ime, con inuously, o shape and in luence he con en and
modus ope andi o hei jobs/wo k o be e acili a e hei mo he ing ole. How mo he s
may seek o do his – c a hei ca ee s – is concep ually explo ed nex in his pape .
51
Ma ian C owley-Hen y.
The Me is E ec : The Subjec i e Ca ee C a ing o Wo king Mo he s
Mo he -Wo ke Ca ee C a ing – Discussion
In his concep ual pape , he cogni i e, ask and ela ional ca ee c a ing p ocesses a e
conside ed in ligh o he Me is me apho . Me is, he G eek goddess who was he king
o Gods, Zeus’ i s wi e, is li le known o in G eek my hology. Howe e , i is known
ha when she became p egnan , she h ea ened Zeus’ powe since i had been o e old
ha she would bea a son ha would be mo e powe ul han Zeus. To p e en his, Zeus
swallowed Me is when she was in he mo phed s a e o an insec . Howe e , despi e
ha ing been de ou ed by Zeus, Me is p oceeded o gi e bi h o hei daugh e , A hena,
who bu s om Zeus’ head ully a mo ed. To b ing he Me is me apho o he con ex o
his pape , Me is may be symbolized as a emale mo he -wo ke , apped (when de ou-
ed) in he male pa ia chal sys em o socio-cul u al no ms and expec a ions in ela ion
o mo he -wo ke s. Howe e , she emains agile (he abili y o mo ph in o an insec p e-
iously) and adap able o he ci cums ances. She ealigns he sel o he ci cums ances
and becomes a mo he o a powe ul emale wa io . She d aws upon he ca ee c a ing
a iad o cogni i e, ask and ela ional dimensions o bes ca e (c a ) a new ole, albei
in an undesi able social con ex . Simila ly o mo he -wo ke s, somewha apped in he
inequi able male-de eloped and male-p io i ized employmen s uc u es s ill in oday’s
mode n socie y, Me is was apped in he husband’s b ain a e being swallowed by him
in he mo phed s a e. Mo he -wo ke s howe e do no emain inac i e, bu a he c a
and ec a dynamically hei mo he -wo ke ac i i ies con inuously so ha hey can bes
combine bo h oles gi en hei pa icula ci cums ances. To do his, hey may al e he
cogni i e ocus o hei wo k and mo he ing oles. This may be h ough a enego ia ion
o whe e hey ind meaning. Fo some, his may be o ocus on mo he hood o a pe iod;
o o he s his may be o combine wo k and mo he hood; and o o he s again, his may
be o con inue p io i izing hei wo king oles. I all depends on wha bes i s hei speci-
ic ci cums ances. I depends on he asks ha a e in ol ed in hei mo he -wo ke oles,
and how hese may be be e acili a ed. Fo ins ance, hose in job oles ha allow lexi-
bili y such as wo king om home may suppo mo he -wo ke s combining oles. I also
depends on he ela ional dimension ha he indi idual mo he -wo ke has. Fo ins ance,
hose wi h suppo i e pa ne s o amily membe s o childca e a angemen s may ha e
mo e con ol o e his dimension when c a ing hei combined mo he -wo ke oles.
Me is, as a me apho , cogni i ely ound meaning, al hough ende ed pa o Zeus’
head, o ocus on bi hing a capable and powe ul daugh e . In ela ion o he ask ocus,
she was able o d aw on he esou ces o ins ill he insigh s in o he daugh e . Rega ding
he ela ional dimension, Me is did no ecei e suppo om he pa ne , and he choices
we e limi ed, and hus she had o ely on he own agen ial and cons ic ed abili ies.
Indi idually, hese h ee dimensions o ca ee c a ing, whe e indi iduals i and mold
aspec s o hei wo k and nonwo k domains and esponsibili ies ela i e o hei pa icu-
la ci cums ances – cogni i e, ask and ela ional – a e impo an dimensions o mo he -
wo ke s o dynamically ailo o hei li e mo i a ions, abili ies and oppo uni ies. To-
ge he , hey demons a e he suppo s (s uc u es) and beha io s (agency) ha acili a e
52
ISSN 1648-2425 eISSN 2345-0266 Socialinė eo ija, empi ija, poli ika i p ak ika
ca ee c a ing o op imally combine mo he -wo ke oles and esponsibili ies. Each o
hese a e unpacked, nex .
Mo he s engage in p oac i e sel - e lec ion in ela ion o hei iden i y as mo he s
and wo ke s (Dean e al., 2021). The e is p agma ism and con inuous a ionalizing o
ca ee choices, while holding ou and s i ing owa d a aining a balance wi h ega d o
success ully ul illing a passion o in e es ha mo he -wo ke s ha e in hei wo king li-
es, combined wi h hei ca ing iden i y as mo he s (Ga ell, 2007; Ga ell, 2013; Ga ell
e al., 2017). This may be amed his posi i ely al hough he challenging enego ia ion
o he mo he -wo ke iden i y canno be igno ed. Mo he s’ engagemen in sel -de elo-
pmen h ough ainings and quali ica ions in o de o build hei ca ee wo k iden i y
exempli y he cogni i e dimension o hei subjec i e ca ee c a ing. He e, he ocus is
on pu suing a di ec ion which has meaning ela ed o hei wo k/li e ha sus ains hei
in ol emen in wo k/employmen . In his way, hey engage in cogni i e ca ee c a ing
ac i i ies. Like he Me is me apho , mo he -wo ke s e use o gi e up seeking o ind
ul ilmen in combining mo he hood and wo k iden i ies simul aneously. They engage in
cogni i e a ionaliza ion on why wo king is essen ial o hei own wellbeing and sense
o sel (see O’B ien, Kačku ė, & C owley-Hen y, 2025).
Secondly, in ela ion o he ask dimension o job c a ing, mo he -wo ke s ocus
on adap abili y and lexibili y so ha o combine hei mo he -wo ke oles. He e, hey
may seek ou pa - ime and/o o he lexible wo k a angemen s o be e combine hei
mo he -wo k oles. This may in ol e ac i e econs uc ion o hei wo k ole o accom-
moda e hei mo he ole. This could in ol e scheduling hei paid wo k esponsibili ies
a ound pe iods when he child en a e in childca e. Howe e , his ende s hei wo k
oles o en as seconda y o he paid wo k oles o hei male spouses and aises ques ions
abou he na u e o ‘balance’ (G ego y & Milne , 2009; S one, 2008).
Thi dly, conce ning he ela ional dimension o ca ee c a ing, he ex e nal suppo
ha is a ailable o mo he -wo ke s impac s on hei ca ee ou comes and oppo uni ies.
Unde his heme, he main suppo agen in mo he -wo ke s’ ca ee c a ing would inclu-
de hei espec i e spouses/ ela ional pa ne s. While he e a e a ia ions in he ex en o
which spouses/pa ne s ac as suppo e s o hei espec i e wi es’ ca ee s, i is e iden
ha , wi hou ha spousal suppo , mo he -wo ke s would no be able o emb ace hei
wo k in e es s as well as hei mo he ing esponsibili ies o he same ex en . O he ex e -
nal suppo could be ex ended amily membe s, such as he child en’s g andpa en s o au-
n s/uncles as well as o mal childca e a angemen s (e.g., childca e ins i u ions, schools).
This discussion, connec ing ca ee c a ing concep s om he ca ee s and human
esou ce managemen domain (Tims & Akke mans, 2020) o he me apho o Me is in
he con ex o mo he -wo ke s na iga ing ac oss social spaces, sugges s ha he li ed
expe iences o wo king mo he s a e deeply en angled in a se o pa adoxical expec a-
ions – o be bo h he ‘ideal wo ke ’ and he ‘good mo he ’ – wi hin ins i u ional and
socio-cul u al s uc u es ha a e inhe en ly gende ed. These expe iences equi e ongoing
nego ia ion, adap a ion, and esilience. To be e unde s and hese dynamics, he Me is
me apho exempli ies he challenging pa ia chal s uc u es ha es ic mo he -wo ke s’
53
Ma ian C owley-Hen y.
The Me is E ec : The Subjec i e Ca ee C a ing o Wo king Mo he s
ca ee de elopmen . Howe e , Me is also ep esen s in elligence, o esigh , and adap a-
bili y. Wi hin he con ex o eminis s andpoin heo y (Ha ding, 1993; Ha sock, 2016),
Me is becomes an emblema ic igu e o how women, pa icula ly mo he s engaged in
paid employmen , na iga e s uc u es no designed wi h hei needs o iden i ies in mind.
Jus as Me is was de ou ed by Zeus, ye pe sis ed om wi hin, mo he -wo ke s a e o en
pe cei ed by socie y o be ‘consumed’ by mo he hood wi h hei p io iden i ies as p o-
essionally p oduc i e and independen indi iduals ende ed in isible. Ne e heless, like
Me is, hey endu e. They ac o sel -de ine h ough ca ee c a ing hei mo he -wo ke
oles o bes accommoda e bo h.
The Me is me apho gains u he ac ion when conside ed alongside he concep
o ca ee c a ing – a subjec i e, con inuous, and adap i e p ocess akin o ‘job c a ing’
(W zesniewski & Du on, 2001) – in which mo he -wo ke s ac i ely eshape he co-
gni i e, ask, and ela ional dimensions o hei wo k and pe sonal li es. Fo ins ance,
cogni i ely, mo he -wo ke s ede ine wha success means o hem, mo ing away om
adi ional linea ca ee models o o he de ini ions o achie emen whe e hei passion
o pa icula wo k and nonwo k ac i i ies akes he cen e s age. Task-wise, wo k p i-
o i ies and schedules a e o en eo ganized o accommoda e ca egi ing esponsibili ies.
Rela ionally, mo he s o en ha e o ecalib a e in e ac ions wi h pa ne s, ex ended ami-
ly, and colleagues o cons uc sus ainable ecosys ems o suppo .
Th ough his lens, ca ee c a ing becomes he mode n exp ession o Me is-like e-
sou ce ulness – a su i al and lou ishing s a egy in a landscape ha oo o en punishes
women o a emp ing o combine mo he hood wi h p o essional ambi ion. Impo an ly,
his p ocess is deeply si ua ed: i is shaped by each woman’s social loca ion, discipli-
na y con ex , ins i u ional cul u e, and access o esou ces. Feminis s andpoin heo-
y eminds us ha hese adap a ions a e no me ely pe sonal choices bu esponses o
s uc u al powe imbalances ha demand con inuous nego ia ion. The e y ac ha mo -
he -wo ke s mus ‘c a ’ ca ee s in he i s place, a he han s ep in o secu e, inclusi e,
and accommoda ing sys ems, speaks o he pe sis ence o pa ia chal no ms ha ame
ca egi ing as incompa ible wi h p o essional legi imacy
Mo eo e , his s udy con ibu es o li e a u e by showing how agency and s uc u e
in e sec in he e e yday decisions o mo he -wo ke s. While high le els o e lexi i y
and esilience a e equi ed – whe ein mo he s a e expec ed o ca y he emo ional and
p ac ical bu den o ca e – his s ill pe sis s, as does he pe cep ion ha seeking accom-
moda ions e lec s a lack o commi men o one’s ca ee . In his way, mo he -wo ke s a e
bo h esis ing and ein o cing sys emic no ms. Thei ca ee c a ing ep esen s ac s o
quie esis ance o idealized no ions o p o essional success, bu hey a e s ill ope a ing
wi hin a sys em ha equi es hem o cons an ly p o e hei wo h. Unlike hei a he -
wo ke coun e pa s, who a e a ely asked o jus i y hei pa en ing commi men s in
p o essional se ings, mo he -wo ke s mo e be ween domains ha equen ly con lic
a he han complemen .
This s udy calls o g ea e ecogni ion o he in isible s a egic labou ha mo he -
wo ke s engage in – a mode n embodimen o Me is’s wisdom and adap abili y – and
