A modern lifestyle brand redefining motherhood

It’s Time For Mad Men (And Women) to Stop Scorning the Stay-at-Home Mom

Editor’s Note: Sure, it’s been a year since the end of Mad Men, but people get busy and there’s a whole heck of a lot of TV to catch up on. If you haven’t made your way through this series and are particularly averse to having it spoiled, STOP HERE. COME BACK LATER. 


I’m not one to place too much stock in the cultural significance of popular television shows, but it’s been a year since AMC’s popular “Mad Men” series ended, and I’m still thinking about poor Betty Draper – the ultimate cautionary tale for stay-at-home moms.

If you never watched “Mad Men,” here’s a quick debrief: Betty Draper is the archetypal 1950s and ’60s housewife. She gives up her modeling career to stay at home, aimlessly cares for her children, and lives a soulless existence in the suburbs.

Then, in the penultimate episode, she is diagnosed with a terminal disease. It’s cancer, of course: a cancer which she learns has already begun to attack her body and will continue to wither her away. Until she dies.

In a show about advertising, it’s hard to dismiss the subliminal message in Betty’s demise. And, in case you missed it, the episode where Betty learns of her diagnosis aired on Mother’s Day.

While other characters lie, cheat, abandon their children, and engage in other morally and legally inappropriate behavior, their story lines get tied up, allowing them to live happily ever after. Even Don Draper – philanderer, liar, identity thief – finds redemption on a seaside retreat in sunny California. Betty, meanwhile, finds herself on the quick ride to death. All of which proves there is no crime worse than being a bad stay-at-home mom. 

You might argue Betty was a symbol for another era. But today’s stay-at-home mom is under the same type of scrutiny. If you’re too involved, you are a helicopter parent and over-indulgent. If you let your children run free, you’re deemed negligent, or possibly arrested. Sometimes it’s tough to know which way to go. I often vacillate between not letting my children walk down the street without a security detail and shooing them away so I can sit and have my coffee in peace.

Even my own mother (the ultimate arbiter of how bad a mom I am) criticizes me on both counts. The other day she found me helping my son with his school project.

“Why are you doing that for him?” she asked.

“I’m not doing it for him. I’m just helping.”

“He’s old enough. He can do it himself,” she said.

“He’s having a hard time,” I said.

“You’re babying him. You don’t need to do everything for him.”

The next day she came over to find the kids playing outside in the yard. She walked inside the house and saw me typing at my computer. Okay fine, I was playing “Candy Crush.” But she didn’t know that, so her response seemed a bit harsh.

“You ignore your kids all the time,” she said.

My mother was a stay-at-home mom for a time, before returning to work when we were older. She played both roles. Yet, her criticism of my parenting style magnified a few years ago after I quit my “real job” to become the primary caregiver. Sometimes I’m not sure if there’s a subliminal message in her disapproval.

I’m at the stage where stay-at-home mom does not feel like an apt descriptor anymore. (To be honest, it never did. I mean, rarely am I home. As the old joke goes, if I’m a stay-at-home mom, why am I in the car so much?) The fact is, few of us will be stay-at-home moms forever. Our children grow. Many of us will find our way back to gainful employment. If we’re lucky it might even be meaningful. 

When that time comes, how will we view those who stay home with children for a period of time? Will we be more accepting, or will the disdain for the ‘50s style housewife still linger? And years from now, how will we react as our sons and daughters raise their kids, and make the hard choices regarding whether both parents work or one stays at home?

Of course I’ll be passive-aggressively judging my future daughter-in-law – that goes without saying. But will I accept that everyone else is doing the best they can, no matter which choices they make? 

By the end of “Mad Men,” even Betty Draper began to transition from her stay-at-home mom status to go back to college. But re-entry into gainful employment won’t be her epithet. It’s 1970, and the treatment for her lung cancer won’t come in time for her to earn her degree. Her fate is sealed. 

And ours? Is death, metaphoric or real, still an acceptable narrative arc for someone who stays at home? “Mad Men,” the series, is over. We can only hope that the end is in sight for our ailing view of the stay-at-home mom.

 

Who said motherhood doesn't come with a manual?

Subscribe to get inspiration and super helpful ideas to rock your #momlife. Motherhood looks amazing on you.

Already a subscriber? Log in here.

Going back to work after having a baby is hard. Regaining your footing in a world where working mothers are so often penalized is tough, and (just like most things during the postpartum period) it takes time.

The challenges we face as working women returning from a maternity leave can be so different from those we faced before, it can feel like we're starting over from scratch. But mothers will not be deterred, even if our return to the working world doesn't go exactly as planned.

We are resilient, as Serena Williams proved at Wimbledon this weekend.

She lost to Angelique Kerber in the final, just 10 months after welcoming daughter Alexis Olympia and recovering from a physically and emotionally traumatic birth experience.

Williams didn't get her eighth Wimbledon title this weekend, but when we consider all the challenges she (and all new moms) faced in resuming her career, her presence was still a huge achievement.

"It was such an amazing tournament for me, I was really happy to get this far!" Williams explained in an emotional post-match interview.

"For all the moms out there, I was playing for you today. And I tried. I look forward to continuing to be back out here and doing what I do best."

The loss at Wimbledon isn't what she wanted, of course, but Williams says it does not mean there won't be wins in her near future.

"These two weeks have showed me I can really compete and be a contender to win grand slams. This is literally just the beginning. I took a giant step at Wimbledon but my journey has just began."

When asked what she hopes other new moms take away from her journey, Williams noted her postpartum recovery was really difficult, and hopes that other moms who face challenges early in motherhood know that they don't have to give up on whatever dreams they have for themselves, whether it involves working or not.

"Honestly, I feel like if I can do it, they can do it. I'm just that person, that vessel that's saying, 'You can be whatever you want to be.' If you want to go back to workand to me, after becoming a mom, I feel like there's no pressure to do that because having a child is a completely full-time job," she said.

"But to those that do want to go back, you can do it, you can really do it."

Thank you, Serena. You may not have won, but this was still a victory.

You might also like:

Since baby Crew became the newest member of Chip and Joanna Gaines' family three weeks ago, his proud parents have been keeping the world updated, sharing sweet snaps of their youngest and even giving us a glimpse into his nursery.

Now, Chip Gaines is showing off a pic that proves there is nothing cuter than a floppy, sleepy baby.

"My heart is full..." the proud father of five captioned the photo he posted on his Instagram and Twitter accounts.

Earlier this week Crew's mama shared how she gets him so sleepy in the first place, posting an Instagram Story showing how she walks around the family's gardens on their Waco, Texas farm to lull her newborn boy to sleep.



The couple are clearly enjoying every single moment of Crew's babyhood. As recently as 7 days ago Chip was still sporting his hospital bracelet. Joanna says with each child he's worn his maternity ward ID until it finally wears off. We can't blame Chip for wanting to make the newborn phase last as long as possible.

You might also like:

It was a changing table must-have a generation ago, but these days, many parents are forgoing baby powder, and now, the leading manufacturer of the sweet smelling powder was dealt a big financial blow.

Johnson & Johnson was just ordered to pay almost $4.7 billion to 22 women who sued, alleging baby powder caused their ovarian cancer.

A St. Louis jury says the women are right, but what does The American Academy of Pediatrics say about baby powder?

It was classified "a hazard" before many of today's parents were even born

The organization has actually been recommending against baby powder for years, but not due to cancer risks, but inhalation risks.

Way back in 1981 the AAP declared baby powder "a hazard," issuing a report pointing out the frequency of babies aspirating the powder, which can be dangerous and even fatal in the most severe cases.

That warning didn't stop all parents from using the powder though, as its continued presence on store shelves to this day indicates.

In 1998 Dr. Hugh MacDonald, then the director of neonatology at Santa Monica Hospital and a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn, told the Los Angeles Times "Most pediatricians recommend that it not be used," adding that the consensus at the time was that "anybody using talcum powder be aware that it could cause inhalation of the talc, resulting in a pneumonic reaction."

Recent updates

A 2015 update to the AAP's Healthy Children website suggests the organization was even very recently still more concerned about the risk of aspiration than cancer risks like those alleged in the lawsuit. It suggests that parents who choose to use baby powder "pour it out carefully and keep the powder away from baby's face [as] published reports indicate that talc or cornstarch in baby powder can injure a baby's lungs."

In a 2017 interview with USA Today, Dr. David Soma, a pediatrician with the Mayo Clinic Children's Hospital, explained that baby powder use had decreased a lot over the previous five to eight years, but he didn't believe it was going to disappear from baby shower gift baskets any time soon.

"There are a lot of things that are used out of a matter of tradition, or the fact it seems to work for specific children," he said. "I'm not sure if it will get phased out or not, until we know more about the details of other powders and creams and what works best for skin conditions—I think it will stick around for a while."

Talc-based baby powder is the kind alleged to have caused ovarian cancer in the lawsuit (which Johnson & Johnson plans to appeal), but corn starch varieties of baby powder are also available and not linked to increased cancer risks as alleged in the case.


Bottom line: If you are going to use baby powder on your baby's bottom, make sure they're not getting a cloud of baby powder in their face, and if you're concerned, talk to your health care provider about alternative methods and products to use on your baby's delicate skin.

You might also like:

In the days since a The New York Times report revealed a resolution meant to encourage breastfeeding was blocked by U.S. delegates at the World Health Assembly, breastfeeding advocates, political pundits, parents, doctors—and just about everyone else—have been talking about breastfeeding, and whether or not America and other countries are doing enough to support it.

The presidents of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians say the controversy at the World Health Assembly reveals that mothers need more support when it comes to breastfeeding, while others, including The Council on Foreign Relations, suggest the national conversation needs more nuance, and less focus on the "breast is best" rhetoric.

The one thing everyone agrees on is that parents need more support when it comes to infant feeding, and in that respect, the controversy over the World Health Assembly resolution may be a good thing.

In their joint letter to the editor published in the New York Times this week, the presidents of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians, Dr. Colleen Kraft and Dr. Lisa Hollier urge "the United States and every country to protect, promote and support breast-feeding for the health of all women, children and families."

The doctors go on to describe how breastfeeding "provides protection against newborn, infant and child infections, allergies, asthma, inflammatory bowel disease and sudden infant death syndrome," and note the health benefits to mothers, including reduced risks for "breast cancer, ovarian cancer, diabetes, hypertension and heart disease.

"Helping mothers to breastfeed takes a multifaceted approach, including advancing public policies like paid family leave, access to quality child care, break time and a location other than a bathroom for expressing milk," say Kraft and Hollier.

Certainly such policies would support breastfeeding mothers (and all mothers) in America, but some critics say framing the discussion around domestic policy is a mistake, because the World Health Assembly resolution is a global matter and women and babies in other parts of the world face very different feeding challenges than we do here at home.

In an op-ed published by CNN, Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations suggests the laudable goal of breastfeeding promotion can backfire when mothers in conflict-riddled areas can't access formula due to well-meaning policy. Lemmon points to a 2017 statement by Doctors Without Borders calling for fewer barriers to formula distribution in war-torn areas.

"International organizations like UNICEF and the World Health Organization (WHO) promote breastfeeding ... and provide infant formula, but only by prescription. We believe that distributing infant formula in a conflict situation like Iraq is the only way to avoid children having to be hospitalized for malnutrition," Manuel Lannaud, the head of Doctors Without Borders Iraq mission wrote.

The various viewpoints presented this week prove that infant feeding is not a black and white issue, and policy debates should not be framed as formula versus breast milk—there is more nuance than that.

A recent study in the Journal of Pediatrics found opting to supplement with formula after first breastfeeding improves outcomes for infants and results in higher rates of breastfeeding afterward, and while the benefits of breastfeeding are numerous, they are sometimes overstated. Another recent study published in the journal PLOS Medicine found breastfeeding has no impact on a child's overall neurocognitive function by the time they are 16. Basically, parents should not be shamed for supplementing or choosing to use formula.

This, according to Department of Health and Human Services says national spokesperson Caitlin Oakley is why the HHS opposed the original draft of the breastfeeding resolution at the World Health Assembly (although critics and the initial NYT report suggest the United States delegation were acting in the interests of infant formula manufacturers).

"Many women are not able to breastfeed for a variety of reasons, these women should not be stigmatized; they should be equally supported with information and access to alternatives for the health of themselves and their babies," Oakley said in a statement.

That's true, but so is everything the presidents of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians presented in their op-ed, and that's why the U.S. should support breastfeeding policy.

Here's another truth: This is an issue with many perspectives and many voices. And we need to hear them all, because all parents need support in feeding their babies, whether it's with a breast, a bottle or both—and we're not getting it yet.

You might also like:

Motherly provides information of a general nature and is designed for educational purposes only. This site does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.Your use of the site indicates your agreement to be bound by our  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Information on our advertising guidelines can be found here.