My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

Feminism: Sex & gender discussions

Had it up to HERE with "having it all"? Please come and help Viv Groskop with her Mumsnet Academy Family and Feminism course

274 replies

VivGroskop · 12/07/2012 14:08

Hello. I'm Viv Groskop and I've been asked by the Mumsnet Academy to run their Family and Feminism course. [MASSIVELY UNSUBTLE PLUG - THEY ARE THE BEST KIND OF PLUGS]

And I need your help.

The idea of having enough of hearing the phrase "having it all" will inform much of the content of the course (currently under INTENSE preparation).

In connection with this bugbear, one particular thing is driving me mad. Can we please solve an argument between me and an old friend (ex-friend?) inspired by me FINALLY reading Anne-Marie Slaughter's piece in The Atlantic in its entirety. Which was probably a mistake. It's the 15,000 word article about (Not) Having It All: why she gave up her job to actually do another full-time job but closer to home because she felt like she was missing out on her two (teenage) sons and/or letting them down. Two weeks after publication this piece has now had over 1.3 million clicks and is one of their most popular pieces ever.

Loved a lot of what Slaughter said and found the whole thing fascinating (although it has taken me about three weeks to read it) but I don't agree with her final analysis. She says women are basically "nurturing and caring". And she implies that in order to be feminine you have to be the nurturer, you can't just go out to work and leave your children at home.

Slaughter claims that (a) if mothers don't give in to their nurturing instinct that they will be unhappy and (b) men are not able to give children the same kind of care. Or at least that's how I read it.

My friend who gave up a job she didn't like very much to be a stay-at-home mum says Slaughter is RIGHT and that this is why most women give up work or cut back on work -- because they can't reconcile the pull between home and work and they want to be in charge of everything at home and not give it up to a man.

I say she is WRONG. Most women do not try to work in Hillary Clinton's office whilst their husband and children are living in a completely different city (as Slaughter did). Most women recognise that life is about compromise and they work hard at finding a way to feel OK about the choices they have made. Most women do not feel de-feminised by their partner doing childcare, instead they are glad of it.

Having thought about it rather too much I am now worried, however, that my friend is RIGHT. And possibly a lot of women do feel that if they work (or work too much) they are not being nurturing or caring enough? Or something? By the way, my friend has not read the article and refuses to because it is too long. Here I see her point. But I am also thinking of getting her a place on the Mumsnet Academy course as a birthday "present" just to annoy her.

OP posts:
Report
tipping · 12/07/2012 14:22

The only time i dream of being a stay-at-home mum is when i have a bad day at work! I agree with you that for most women (and men) life is about compromise. And I am delighted that my partner does lots of the childcare too. By the by, i get the chance to be nurturing and caring at work too, as a manager and colleague.

Report
VivGroskop · 12/07/2012 14:30

Yes! Colleagues need nurturing too! I wish some of my bloody colleagues would nurture me.

OP posts:
Report
CailinDana · 12/07/2012 14:31

I don't see why it's necessary to decide on one way of being for "all women." Where does it say that "all men" want to be footballers or want to be prime minister? How is it that men just get to choose their own path but women have to follow a formula? I don't get it.

Surely it's just up to the individual woman to say "these are the choices open to me, what do I really want?" and just decide for herself?

Report
VivGroskop · 12/07/2012 14:36

absolutely that's why I find pieces like Slaughter's really weird it's as if she's speaking for all women when really she's just speaking for her own personal situation (which is INCREDIBLY idiosyncratic). It is really hard to find a balance between getting these things discussed and making it seem as if "this is how women feel".

OP posts:
Report
CailinDana · 12/07/2012 14:38

I can see the value in someone saying "this is how it happened for me," but to draw definite conclusions about how all women feel is rather bizarre given how different we all are.

Report
dontcallmehon · 12/07/2012 14:45

I think 'having it all' can be damaging to some women, who don't want to 'have it all' or who feel as if they are still having to manage the bulk of the domestic work whilst maintaining a full time job. Equally, there are plenty of women who enjoy their careers and should have the option.

Personally, I am about to walk away from a full time job to work part time on a self employed basis, doing something I love. It doesn't fit perfectly with the dcs, being mainly evenings, but it is not stressful and leaves me happy and rejuvenated rather than exhausted.

Everyone is different; everyone's circumstances are different. Articles like this are far too generalised.

Report
grimbletart · 12/07/2012 14:54

This is a woman for whom her choice did not work out. Fair enough. Where she is going wrong is telling other women that their choices (in work) won't work out for them either.

Unfortunately, prominent individuals get their voices heard out of all proportion to the validity of their message - not because their message is correct - but because it is them saying it.

It's a bit like a celeb mum saying her way of giving birth is right because it worked for her. There was one of these so-called celebs (can't remember who) the other day spouting some unscientific gobbledygook about epidurals, who sadly might get listened to by celeb followers. Same sort of thing.

Studies of one don't yield meaningful results.

Report
Treats · 12/07/2012 15:07

This is what I said when we had a brief discussion about the article on here - that Slaughter's experience is so unique that it's impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions for even a few other people, never mind "all other women in the world". Most of us bumble along with whatever combination of work and home we are able to organise.

What CailinDana said - we wouldn't extrapolate one man's experience to make assumptions about what every man wants.

Far too often in the media and on Mumsnet we want to set up (or tear down) other women as 'role models' - as if what someone else is doing is somehow a comment on everyone else. Or to lay into them if they're not doing what we're doing. As if their choices being different from ours is a reflection on us. Or them.

There is absolutely no need for Slaughter - or anyone else - to write that article. At the end of the day, it comes down to "I found better ways to spend my time" - well - so what?

Report
BlingLoving · 12/07/2012 15:45

Yes, lots of women feel that by working too much they are not caring or nurturing enough. They are wrong and it's just another way society likes to make women feel bad... In such a way that we don't even realise its a fake construct but actually buy this idea that it's just the way it is.

A woman with a high powered job appears to be more likely to worry about her children than a man in a similar role. And if she doesn't, she's perceived as strange. When last did a man getting a new job get asked by friends what his new child care arrangements will be? But it happens to women all the time by friends and family.

Truthfully, women can't "have it all" in terms of a career AND constant time with children. But why should we? You either work and have less time with kids or you don't work and are with them 24/7. Doesn't make you a bad mother if you choose the former.

Report
LineRunner · 12/07/2012 15:50

I think the political reality of women's lives in the UK is that we are mostly left finding personal solutions to common issues; but that does not in turn equate the personal with a big political picture.

Report
minipie · 12/07/2012 16:12

What Bling said.

However, many women don't have the choice to work more and have less time with kids - because their DP/DH isn't willing to be a SAHP and they don't earn enough to cover full time childcare.

Report
Virgil · 12/07/2012 16:36

Haven't read the piece yet (will now) but I struggle trying to have it all. I work full time in a senior professional role and have two small DSs. I am constantly feeling pulled in two different directions and whilst I love the job I do I do not want to relinquish control
In the home. Actually that's not quite true, I am happy to delegate specific tasks but not for DH to take over and do things in a different way but that's just my control issues!!

Report
strandednomore · 12/07/2012 16:57

If only I could go back in time and take out whoever it was that invented the phrase "Having it All" (the editor of Cosmopolitan perhaps?), then we might have a chance to get on with whatever way we find works best for us as a family without feeling guilty about it. I gave up not just a job but a career (in the Foreign Office) when I had children - our life wasn't compatible with two mobile careers and two small children, so something had to give. Yes there are days when I regret my choices, I certainly miss earning my own income (as well as the day-to-day excitement of working in such a fast-changing environment). But in the end we didn't have a huge choice due to our personal circumstances, so we just have to live with our decisions. I am now re-training and hoping to work part time as well as doing some writing from home - I probably won't ever earn much money but at least we have a vaguely happy, functioning family!

Report
VivGroskop · 12/07/2012 17:01

The piece is worth reading as it covers all the bases on this (vast) subject -- but there are shortcuts too including this list of questions in reply to all the criticisms of the piece www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/anne-marie-slaughter-answers-her-critics/259274/

Slaughter says she regrets the headline about "having it all" and would rather the piece was titled Why working mothers need better choices to be able to make it to the top."

What she's really writing about is the world of politics (which, I'm guessing, can be compared to law, banking or any high-commitment, high-competition field): "You cannot do a job like the one I just left (Director of Policy Planning in Hillary Clinton's office -- the first woman to hold this post) and have any life outside work. So how will we ever see more women in public life?"

This is a really important point but it's not entirely relevant to women in other fields of work. There are very few people (regardless of gender) who would want to have this kind of job one which requires a near-obsessive, single-minded dedication. (See The West Wing don't think anyone had small children in that, did they?)

We are OK in the UK, though, we've got Louise Mensch. Wink Biscuit

OP posts:
Report
Virgil · 12/07/2012 17:03

Ok now read the article. I think she is right. Amongst my peers there are a couple of women who have achieved more than the others. This is not because they are any better at their roles (in fact in one notable case the person concerned is not very good at what she does) but what they have in common is the fact that they are not married with children. The others are juggling and constantly feeling that the balancing act is a real struggle. One is about to take a career break to focus on the children, another is about to reduce her hours in the knowledge that this will
Impact on her career but she is feeling too guilty about missing school events etc. I think most women with children do feel the need to do the mummy bit too and ultimately many make sacrifices to do this.

I love what I do, my work life balance is probably better than many on paper because I work flexible hours around the school day but I still feel guilty about not giving the children the time I could if I didn't work. Plus I'm constantly exhausted and the house is a tip because something has to give!

This is a bit of a ramble, not sure I'm really
Answering the questions!

Report
VivGroskop · 12/07/2012 17:05

Thanks everyone for these great responses by the way. What fine common sense is talked here. virtually invites ma-hoosive loon troll type

OP posts:
Report
strandednomore · 12/07/2012 17:06

Viv - you have sort of put me off reading the article by saying it took you three weeks to do so....

Report
VivGroskop · 12/07/2012 17:10

Hee hee strandednomore I blame that on me rather than on the article. Though it does go on a bit... Managed to get through it quicker once I got hold of a copy of the magazine. Not easy to read 15,000 words online. Maybe Kindle is the key? (don't have Kindle) Or consider that I have read it so you don't have to...

OP posts:
Report
Virgil · 12/07/2012 17:22

The fundamental problem is that you cannot have it all. You simply cannot be wonder woman at work working late into the night, travelling the world and dropping everything to meet deadlines and also be nigella lawson in the kitchen baking fresh cookies every day, cooking every meal from scratch, spending good quality time with your children every day, reading to them, helping them with their homework, playing with them. You just can't. There are not enough hours in the day even when you pay others to help with housework, gardening etc. So those who dedicate all their time to their work need to rely on others to spend the time with the children. Some (in my experience relatively few) will take this option and justify it to themselves, the majority will try to do both, needing and wanting to work but also needing to spend the time with the children. The result in the vast majority of cases will be that they do not reach the level they could have in the workplace. Most of my peers (late thirties early forties lawyers) are taking steps to try to reclaim some of that parenting time on the basis that If they'd wanted someone else to get to spend all the time with the children there really wasn't much point in having them in the first place.

Report
CMOTDibbler · 12/07/2012 17:47

I think that the examples of those held up as proof you can't 'have it all' are the problem - they are always city traders/lawyers/politicing types - roles that are pretty much incompatible with even relationships in many cases.

I think I have it all though - a very satisfying career for which I travel all over the world, a wonderful ds, and a fab dh - who has a great career of his own. Apart from childcare (not a nanny) our only help is 3 hours cleaning a week. And between dh and myself, we read with ds every day, cook real meals, bake etc.
But dh and I do our fair shares of everything, prioritise ds and ourselves above everything else. I'm not afraid to buy costumes from Amazon, am shameless about buying cakes/mincepies etc, and I really don't care if others judge me - it all works for us. And I know a number of other women who, along with their partner, make it work.

I am not sure why dh couldn't care as well as I could - actually I just asked him and he went Hmm and suggested that it might be in the same realm as people who suggest men can't clean/iron/cook.

Report
VivGroskop · 12/07/2012 17:49

Well said, Virgil. Nicola Horlick recently said something about how working mothers who prepare organic meals with their own fair hands for the nanny to re-heat while they're at work are just setting themselves up for failure. Something has to give. Really interested in this bit: "they do not reach the level they could have in the workplace" -- and your implication that they accept that and don't mind (right?) because they see it as a trade-off for having the children they wanted. Do you think we should accept that as a reality? Or fight against it? Don't those women deserve to reach the level they could have and spend a reasonable amount of time with their children? Or is that like asking to be an astronaut and be based exclusively on earth?!

OP posts:
Report
strandednomore · 12/07/2012 18:02

Viv - the only way to do this would be to create a more level playing field, eg somehow (magic wand time I think) introduce a working culture where people go home on time, flexible working is the norm, part-time and job-shares are treated with the same level of respect as full-time workers. And for all of this I mean men as well as woman. I think both me and my husband would love to work part-time if it was a real possiblity - eg if both our half-jobs offered us the same level of pay (added together I mean), promotion prospects, pensions etc as his full time job does.
I agree with the point about it being harder in some careers than others to "have it all" and there are plenty of jobs out there where you can work full time and have children. But how many of those have to fall back on parents/family members to help out in the holidays? Many of us don't have that luxury.

Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

Virgil · 12/07/2012 18:19

I think that in many cases they do accept it Viv but I wouldn't say they don't mind. It's incredibly difficult to fight against the workplace culture that assumes that those who want to spend time with their children during the traditional working day are not serious about their careers. I am
Serious about my career. At the risk of outing myself Grin I am a successful lawyer, I am known in my field and considered to be very good at what I do. I have the support of a wonderful DH who basically takes over all tasks in the mornings so that I can get into the office early, meaning that I then leave to do the school run in the afternoon. I am strict about ensuring that I do this so I manage it nine out of ten times. I then work again in the evenings once the DCs are asleep. I work hard. There are still people in my firm who think I don't pull my weight because of the way in which I try to juggle things and the fact that I don't work to a traditional nine to five pattern. I am realistic enough to know that I will only progress to a certain level. I accept this because the time with my DCs when they are small is important to me. I most certainly mind though.

Report
Takver · 12/07/2012 18:24

Haven't read the article yet, will try to read it this evening. But one thing from your OP stands out for me:

"most women give up work or cut back on work -- because they can't reconcile the pull between home and work and they want to be in charge of everything at home and not give it up to a man. "

From threads on here, plus people I know, the fact that women typically earn (often a lot) less than men is a MASSIVE contributing factor when as a couple they are making a decision as to who will drop hours/be a SAHP. Plus the fact that in many workplaces it is even less acceptable for a man to go p/t than it is for a woman (oh, and women are more likely to be in the public sector, which is more p/t friendly in the main). Add those factors to the fact that the mother is already de facto off work on maternity leave for x months, and it is just too easy for her to carry on being the one doing the home stuff.

So, in an awful lot of cases, nowt to do with some bollox nurturing instinct, and mostly down to cold hard cash . . .

Report
Virgil · 12/07/2012 18:24

I could spend more time working though if I spent less time on MN !!

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.