I wanted so much to love this book as it speaks to so many things dear to my heart. I wanted to read these essays and feel a deep affinity with the mothers and what they were writing about. I wanted to come away having a better insight into the working mother's difficulties and conflicts but feeling somehow uplifted knowing I wasn't alone in my plight.
But for the most part this collection was dull and not particularly well-written (contrast with the collections entitled "Mama PhD" or "Mothers Who Think").
Many of the essays weren't particularly insightful. Other reviewers have spoken about the lack of diversity amongst the essay contributors. There was a range (albeit somewhat limited) of diverse experiences (eg: army mother; college student mother etc) and diverse-ish backgrounds and perspectives but most of the contributors were Princeton graduates (presumably white) and so it was hard to get a sense from the collection that it could speak to all mothers on the issue of combining motherhood with paid work. Not that we could reasonably expect that from the collection (it would be an extremely tall order and I do think it is valuable to at least represent the experiences of some mothers) but one did get the feeling that many of the contributors were chosen because they were friends (or at least aligned) with the editor as the quality of many of the essays was weak. Kathryn Beaumont's essay effectively says she works so she can buy lattes. An incredibly superficial discussion of what it is like to be a commercial lawyer and a mother and some of the challenges but at the same time incredible intellectual rewards of the profession.
I had to laugh at Cathleen Blood's essay where she points out (at page 71 of the paperback edition) that her daughter had included lots of spelling mistakes in her mother's day card only to, on the very next page, write "Dad's" instead of the plural "Dads."
And while we are being pedantic, Joana Jebsen's essay uses the proverbial "angels on the head of a pin" incorrectly in the opening line of her essay.
To be honest, the collection is poorly edited and slips like the above are just a small indication of that.
I should add, however, that perhaps it was just my frame of mind at the time and perhaps my expectations were sufficiently lowered by the time I got half-way through but I found that the essays from p.109 onwards got much better. I did enjoy the essay by Alexander Bradner, possibly because it was one of the few until that point that I thought was well-written (many of the essays read as though the person had just thrown something on the page the night before it was due). I also enjoyed Courtney Cook's, Barbara Hagerty's, and Nina Ignaczak's essays. Lindsay Mead's hit quite close to home so I enjoyed that. Kim Todd's is beautifully written. In fact, I did enjoy most of the essays in the second half.
I did think Bradner's essay had some pretty bold (and scientifically incorrect or at least unproven) claims and generalisations. Her comment that "Children need their mothers - not nannies or daycare workers - to narrate the mundane, introduce so many joys, and assist with so many pains. Only someone in love with a child can get down on the floor around the fourth hour of care and invest in a puzzle" is the opposite of my experience at least - I am much more short-tempered and less patient with my child than the amazing people in her nursery; I tend to put her in front of television the first chance I get!. One paragraph that also stung in Bradner's essay is the one that read (on p.114): "Without our attention, without our rules, [our children in daycare] live unconstrained in the context of care institutions ... They roam blankly about these toxic-foamed-matted rooms, swatting at each other, consuming "health" bars and juices built out of refined sugars and modified starches, looking at garish plastic toys without knowing how to play with them, and waiting for their heavy diapers to be changed. Their energy is unchanneled, their vocabularies underdeveloped, and their cognitive potential untapped .... they're prevented from forming any true identity but that of the generic company kid." My response to that description of all nurseries is: WHAT A LOAD OF BS! I had never read such a piece of generalized anti-nursery crap until I read that paragraph. I am not quite sure how an academic can still be employed as such when they can write such unsubstantiated claims. Or least, why a philosophy professor couldn't find and afford a better nursery.
I did think the editor made some good choices in including many essays from stay-at-home mothers to show that the issues on which we are "torn" - to work or not to work and how - cut both ways: there are mothers who wish they had gone out to work too. So I am not quite sure where the negative reviewers are coming from when they say that this book was bashing stay-at-home motherhood. I did query whether they had actually read the entire book before writing the negative reviews. This may also be a reflection of poor editorial judgment as the weaker and more unrepresentative and polemic essays were placed at the beginning of the collection. That being said, even if the collection did not speak to the experiences of stay-at-home mothers (which I dispute), I think that is defensible for the reason I gave above: it is a tall order to expect the book to speak to the exact experiences of ALL mothers and there is value is just speaking to a certain type of experience. There is plenty of literature (and indeed television programs and films) already that speak to the stay-at-home mother's experience. If this book doesn't reflect your reality then go find something else that does. That being said, I thought it did a pretty good job of having essays by both stay-at-home mothers and working outside the home (or a hybrid of the two) mothers.
One thing I thought was a bit odd is how the editor, in the Acknowledgements, treats the book as if it is her own (as opposed to a collection of essays that she had edited). She talks about "the writing process" (cf: editing process) of the book for her etc. This becomes even more apparent as you read the essays and the editor's name is at the top of every page. It is quite annoying because when I was reading an essay I often wanted to be reminded of the author's name so I could look them up in the biographies at the back. I would have to find the beginning of the essay to get their name whereas "Samantha Parent Walgreaves" and the name of the book (not the particular essay) was at the top of every page. Very annoying.
Overall, a pretty good collection of essays but poorly edited and didn't live up to its potential.