30
offers discursive support suggesting it is difficult to put self or relational needs before
those of their children. Both Karen and Dee offer supportive ‘mirroring’ (Coates, 1997)
accounts recalling how their family trips on the previous Saturday had passed. Karen
notes that trying 'do' being a family results in further stress (L123-124) and the 'social
ritual' of the family outing often ends in argument. The issue at stake appears to be
fulfilling the social obligation of 'being a family' and going out together, which as Karen
comments is an occasion that ‘should have been nice’ (124). Both women’s matching
accounts reflect how difficult it is to re-adjust to family roles after a week of teaching.
This interaction reflects the conflict involved in balancing and addressing the
time-constraining domestic needs of being a working mother. Karen's earlier comments
suggest that children's needs are those that are given priority with immediate partner-
related needs (104-105) being postponed. Weedon has claimed that the pressure to fulfil
the 'primary role ... of wife and mother' (1987: 3) is a salient factor in the way in which
women construct gender identity. However, while the teachers' talk does show evidence
that, for these women, a child’s needs will be prioritized over their own, it is not always
the case that they are willing to prioritize a partner's needs over their individual needs.
Although, in line with Weedon's claims, the women’s discourse does mark awareness of
the relational conflict that can arise for working mothers in relation to their social role as
a partner.
Conclusion
Convention