Why are mothers so exhausted today?

Mrs Tazi-Preve, why are mothers often tired?

They are tired of the constant balancing act between job and family, household and the many thousands of other things they have to take care of. But that's not their fault.

Whose fault is it then?

Our model of life, the nuclear family, is to blame. It is the source of our unhappiness.

Can you explain that?

The nuclear family is a misnomer. Family is another term that includes siblings, uncles and aunts. But in politics, the media and society, we always talk about the nuclear family.

What's wrong with that?

The nuclear family is a tiny, very fragile construct that has to constantly recharge itself emotionally. Two things are locked together in this isolated unit, which politicians like to call the smallest cell of the state, and claim that this is the way it has to be.

Which two things?

Firstly, the lifelong romantic relationship and secondly, the secure raising of children. Now, lifelong romantic relationships between two people only exist in exceptional cases. But it is suggested that it is the norm.

Eternal love does not exist?

No. The statistics show that. Half of all marriages end in divorce. Couples who live in cohabitation and separate are not even included in the statistics. But separations and divorces are still morally sanctioned. Politicians speak of a decline in values. Or the woman who presumes to go out to work is blamed.

Nevertheless, we all long for romantic togetherness.

This should come as no surprise to us. We are constantly being told that romantic, legitimised love that lasts a lifetime is the norm to strive for. And that those who fail are to blame. The irony is that the romantic idea of marriage only emerged late in history.

Even the Romans, who laid the legal foundations for marriage and family laws, had no illusions about what it meant for people. They openly stated that marriage was a «source of annoyance» for those involved, but that it was a «civic duty» and that it was necessary for the functioning of politics and society. This makes it clear that the well-being of two people has never been at the forefront when it comes to marriage. Nevertheless, we are still addicted to the idea today.

People are looking for something that doesn't exist and despair of reality.

Romantic love is an illusion?

Yes, but we should recognise that it is the exception. The perfidious thing about it is that it is now being presented as the norm. I find that particularly problematic for young people.

Why?

Because they are told that their happiness in life is linked to another person. We believe that somewhere out there is a person who is perfect for us. With whom there are no arguments, no conflicts. In the USA they say: «It wasn't the right one.» In other words, you question the person, not the ideal you're sitting on. People are looking for something that doesn't exist and despair at the reality.

Now there are few alternatives to marriage or cohabitation.

The partnership is often lived as a substitute for the lack of emotional affection from the family of origin. This means that the lack of viable alternatives leads to a belief in pair-bonding as the only promise of happiness.

And the nuclear family is seen as an irrefutable idyll.

Yes, and both men and women suffer from this. And here we come to the second problem I mentioned, namely that children should grow up safely in the family for 10 to 20 years. But that can't happen because two people are simply not enough. Basically, everyone involved is overwhelmed.

You have shaped the reconciliation debate. What do you mean by that?

Desire and reality are so far apart. Here, two inherently divergent social systems - that of the labour market and that of the family - are supposed to be reconciled without complaint.

How is this to be understood?

The continuous care, emotional affection and support of family members, i.e. the family sphere, is contrasted with a working world that is geared towards flexibility, performance and efficiency.

How did you come up with the topic of mothers in your research?

I started researching this when I realised that mothers are under enormous pressure. Over the years, the reactions to my lectures have confirmed this. At some point I realised that the suffering is structural. I wanted to investigate this and relieve mothers of their guilty conscience.

Are mothers' feelings of guilt systemic?

I live in the USA, and the term «mummy wars» has become popular here. It describes the competition between women for even better motherhood. Today, you have to encourage your child from an early age and send them to all kinds of courses. This is the new, modern form of pressure on mothers. The reputation of being a bad mother has always been a very effective threat of sanctions. No woman wants to be a bad mum - even feminism hasn't changed that. And women will do anything to avoid this threat.

Motherhood and securing a livelihood are mutually exclusive.

The equivalent of the bad father doesn't exist?

At least not in this form. Mothers are always to blame. They are identified as the guilty party when they fail - in some respects - to bring up their children due to excessive demands, for example eating disorders or school problems. As managers, fathers can still say at the end of their careers: "I hardly saw my children because of my job. Imagine a woman saying that she has unfortunately not been able to look after her children.

Nevertheless, it is suggested to women today that they can have it all. Mothers have to be sexy, successful and always there for their children. This results in total exhaustion. I call this the «compatibility lie». Whether as a housewife, part-time or full-time professional, she always stumbles into the «mother trap» because motherhood and securing a livelihood are mutually exclusive. And also because men still earn far more. Mothers remain dependent as housewives, as part-time workers they are dependent on additional income from the state or their husbands and as full-time workers they are permanently exhausted.

Some live out their motherhood.

Many women actually define themselves through motherhood, because they hardly get to the top floors anyway. But that's also because they plan their lives around their children. It's a reciprocal effect. A career often means being available at all times, and women rarely want that. That's why I always come back to the labour market when talking about family. The rules need to change there. Because men are also falling victim to the patriarchy.

Fathers who are very involved in their children's lives report that they have to actively oppose the demand for constant availability at work. They have to consciously put their career on the back burner and clearly state, for example, that they cannot attend meetings after four o'clock because their child is coming home from school. These conscious fathers are still in the minority.

How could it be better?

It is important to have a stable network to rely on. Isolating children and mothers from the rest of society is detrimental to the health of both. We also know that some women and men are unsuitable or only marginally suitable as mums and dads, or they may be temporarily unavailable. However, there are often no or very few other contact persons for children. In addition, the family is still the biggest theatre of violence against women and children - despite all the myths that portray the family as a place of longing.

How can mothers be relieved?

First of all, they need to stop feeling guilty and understand that there are social and historical reasons for «maternal misery». Secondly, they need to stop believing that the nuclear family is the ideal place to raise children. Thirdly, women should begin to understand family as matrilineal (Latin: in the mother's line). Family understood in this way means kinship through the mother, not through marriage or a partially or often absent father. This is because men can hardly be counted on due to their integration into the prevailing system, which prioritises professional activity over the needs of the family. There are also repeated approaches to other forms of housing and living in which certain areas are shared, such as childcare, meal preparation and housekeeping.

And fourthly?

Fourthly, we generally need a culture of sharing paid work, childcare and family management, otherwise we will not get anywhere. And fifthly, we need to say goodbye to the misconception that work makes us free and happy.

Work and family together are an unreasonable burden that overburdens mothers, fathers and children.

Business representatives are in favour of promoting women.

The interest in female or maternal labour has nothing to do with equality. Nor is the welfare of the children at the forefront. The current neoliberal economic and political system is solely concerned with increasing the company's profit or the country's economic growth. It wants «human production», i.e. the provision of labour and consumers, to function without complaint.

You say that the «private» does not exist.

Yes, within the system it's always about power, money or morality. This contradicts all needs for empathy and security in a family life. Most people are dependent on work to secure their livelihood. But work and family together are an unreasonable burden that overburdens mothers, fathers and children.

Analyses of work-life balance issues show this excessive demand and suffering from the system, which manifests itself in symptoms of illness such as stress, burnout and depression. Women should therefore stop believing in the fairy tale of a career and an easy work-life balance. The career woman with children who can manage this effortlessly is an invention of the media and the economy.

They themselves have experienced what it means to grow up in patriarchal structures.

My mother became pregnant with me at a very young age, by an older man of a different nationality who was more interested in studying and who left the country a year after I was born. At that time, social services were notorious for taking children away from underage mothers. My mother therefore had to submit to the will of my grandparents, where we both lived. She never got custody, that remained with the youth welfare office, and she didn't receive any financial support. She was also unable to complete her schooling. She later got married, which rehabilitated her in the eyes of the outside world. The story of my surname, which I describe in my book, shows the patriarchal nature of jurisdiction and state bureaucracy, which ultimately reflects our social and political conditions.