being a sah is not considered a legitimate pursuit anymore...

Writer do you believe, then, that WOH fathers who work a 60 hour week are not a large part of their children's lives?

I agree it would be helpful to take some of the pressure off women by not pretending it's possible to both be a fully involved parent and a fully involved employee. Something (usually a bit of both) will give.

But I also think it would be helpful if we put more pressure on men. Many men seem to think at present that "having a family" involves coming home from work to kiss the DCs goodnight. Why is that acceptable? Why are they not put under the same pressure to balance being involved at work and being involved with their family?

Writer of Dreams: That's it in a nutshell.

We are given Birth Plans, asked if we want to Breastfeed etc, as it were all without problem.

Empowering or not? Yes in some ways - it lets a woman know there are options - but takes away the 'see what happens to you' element and can be as much of a blow as a salve.

I have a friend who is pregnant for the first time at the moment and she is embracing it all. When asked how she thinks birth will go, other mothers look at each other with a wry grin as she tells us about her extensive playlist, waterbirth with no drugs and as much movement as possible.

As a good friend and as a fellow woman, I just had to say to her 'Please aim for that, it sounds wonderful. But anything could happen and you might not be in control of it.' I felt it was my duty to say something. Everyone else just smiled and nodded at her. I didn't want to be the harbinger of doom, but I know, I just KNOW if I was prepared more than I was, if I had an inkling of knowledge, of the loss of control, of the fact that my own biology might not stand up to my expectations of strength, then I might have svaed myself a whole lot of heartache.

Nobody told me that. Nobody prepared me. And from then on, I feel as though I have been reading a huge 'lift-the-flap' story where everything is trial and error and there's no way of knowing what to expect.

It is a loss of control - and it's shocked my system to the core.

I keep saying to my dh, that if I'd just been set up to raise a family, if only I hadn't been educated, told I can have what I want, told about gap years and having it all and jobs for life in which you can grow and develop...maybe, just maybe the disappointment wouldn't be so choking.

:( Three little ducks. You told your story very well.

I hope I don't come across as glib, and perhaps what I have to say won't apply to you at all, but I do worry that women are convinced, wrongly, that having a family is a breeze and they should be able to have a great career and a family at the same time. As many discover, especially after a second child comes along, it is not a breeze, it is damn hard if you expect to have a very successful demanding career and children then you're expecting an awful lot of yourself. It totally is possible to do it, but the fact of the matter is that there are only so many hours in the day and something will have to lose out in the end. There are plenty of women who love their jobs and are perfectly happy to put their children in childcare, and can afford to do so. So it works really well for them and they make it look easy. But for other women, putting a child in childcare for long hours is both emotionally and financially impossible and women need to be aware that this could happen for them. There is no point in not being straight with women and then making them feel like failures when they don't sail through it all and become CEO while raising a brood of 5. Women are human, and have human feelings and most women are overcome by the love they have for their children and the desire to be part of their lives as they grow up. You just can't work a 60 hour week and still be a big part of your children's lives. It's not possible.

I would like to echo what HopeForTheBest said about it all changing at the point of pregnancy.

I too am the product of a very feminist upbringing - I was raised by a single mother and my sister and I were wholly encouraged to do everything for ourselves.
We were wholly independant creatures - in our house it was my mum who did all of the painting, fixing, cooking, cleaning, mending, making, building;everything. I can't recall a time where we would need a 'man' to sort anything out for us.
We followed the example she set for us and as a result I was working from the age of 13, earning my own keep, buying my own school clothes, paying for any nights out, etc.

We worked hard, respected our mother, got good grades, went to uni, started our lives. I had my own flat at 17. I was full of confidence. I've been to drama school, I've got a good degree, I worked behind bars, I worked in clubs, I workedwith sn children. I loved my very independant and focused life.

I met dh, we had ds1.

I had a terrible pg. High bp, pre-eclampsia, then a horrible emergency section at the 11th hour. A bit of a shock to the system for a young lady who had not been reliant on anyone before for anything.

I probably am a victim of my own circumstance apart from anything else, but yes, one thing I noticed, more than anything else, is how much in the way of things my own biology got.

DH got his new graduate job just after I had ds1, so of course he started on the career ladder, as I was still recovering from birth and trying to be a new mum.

I didn't realise until I got pg that most of my friends were male. The female friends I had had moved to different cities for uni etc. Once my pg singled me out as female, weaker, less able to compete etc...that was it. I was all of those things. My pg rendered me physically unable to keep up. Then there was the birth, which seriously freaked out my male friends! Then all of the emotional stuff which I didn't know how to deal with, let alone anyone else - the PND, the lonliness, the realisation that I was a SAHM.

Coming to terms with being a SAHM is maybe something I'll never do.

I have never faced a bigger conundrum in my whole life.

I do feel like I have literally killed a part of myself in order to raise my children.

Part of me has died. And whether it's confidence, or something that has had to happen in order to make me a stronger woman - I'm still working it out. I am happier with it than I have been in a long time. But in myself, I am different. I am more mature, my radar is on for bullshit and fairweather friends and I am more measured in the way I deal with things.
I am however,less sure of myself, a lot lonlier and a lot more sensitive than I've ever been.

I am reliant, for the first time in my life on a man for income, the rook over my head, holidays, breaks, clothes, shoes, everything material and immaterial that I need.
What a punch in the face that has been!

I have such a strong work ethic and have so many skills and talents and I am crushed at home. Utterly crushed.

I love my children, with all of my heart and soul, I do. I love them, I love the bones of them, but I struggle with the very stigma of SAHM.

I shouldn't care what anyone else thinks, but I do. It commands very little respect and it has the ability to render me invisible. People just assume that's all I am and all I'm capable of and that's ridiculously demeaning.
I can't use childcare as we can't afford it. I would literally be working to pay someone to look after my kids. No deal.

There you go. Love my kids to death, hate being stuck at home with them, it's all my womb's fault! If he'd have had a womb, by golly we would at least have had a shot about. He's fair like that.

Biology [shakes fist at it]

I agree about not making women who choose non-"female" paths feel less like women.

Something that stayed with me in the book was the personal stories of the women Pinker interviewed. Now, I know it's not scientific and purely anecdotal but what jumped out at me was the way that a lot of women had felt they were required to repress their "feminine" side in order to be "successful" - ie that they should want to be like men and wanting to do a traditionally female job like being SAHM wasn't worthy of them. Many of them felt that rather than being pushed into female roles they were pushed into male roles that gave them a male version of success that just didn't satisfy them.

What people seem to forget is that culture doesn't just appear out of thin air, nor do people sit down and decide on culture in a conscious way. There wasn't a committee of men that sat down one day and said "you know what we'll make sure that women adore babies and want to be near them, want to have them and want to stay at home to look after them." Culture grows out of the way a group of people naturally behave. Whether that natural behaviour is right or wrong is another thing.

There are many incidents in history that have shown that you can't just decide what people should be like and then make them that way. There is an inherent human nature that influences our behaviour no matter how we might feel rationally about a situation. So, for example, communism, while great in theory, struggles hugely in practice because humans tend to be competitive animals who need goals and rewards in order to motivate them. In theory we would all love everyone to have equal access to everything but in practice without success and reward and the promise of more money or prestige we feel listless and demotivated.

We should accept that women, in general, have a strong desire to have children and to look after a family. I know this doesn't go for all women but it goes for a very large proportion of them. Girls should be given the message that yes, they can do what they like, and if that's having a family and a job that fits around looking after children that's just as valid an option as being a high flying lawyer or a CEO. Giving girls the message that they can have a huge career and still have plenty of time for a family is just untrue in today's world. Rather than pulling the wool over their eyes it's better to give them the truth - that having a family is a very time consuming pursuit that is difficult to fit around a demanding career. You need to talk to your partner early on and decide what your priority is in terms of career/childcare and be realistic about it. And yes, it's women who need to do this as they are the ones that lose out more often than men from not carefully planning ahead.

that is very interesting writer

So, on the flip side of making women who choose traditionally female roles feeling inadequate, we need to make sure we don't make those who dont choose a female path feel less like women.. if that makes sense..

I suppose in a way, it would only be in an enviornment like Kibbutzim where women could freely make choices without any kind of critisism or stigma.

I totally get what you're saying Berkshire and that definitely is something to take into consideration. Coming at it from a completely scientific point of view, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that regardless of cultural factors there are significant innate differences between men and women that exist across all cultures, and all situations. Society has blown these differences completely out of proportion in order to pigeonhole people and that's where the problem lies.

A very interesting natural experiment was the Kibbutzim (closed communes) in Israel during the 1970s where from birth children were brought up in a very strictly gender neutral environment and huge emphasis was placed on everyone's roles being equal. Children were looked after communally and all chores were divided equally so that there were no traditional mother and father roles. The expectation of course was that everything would be 50-50 and women would end up doing pretty much the same range of jobs as men.
Quoting directly: "after four generations of trying to enforce gender neutral family and work roles, 70 to 80 percent of the women had gravitated towards people-oriented jobs, primarily related to children and education, while the majority of men preferred to work in the fields, factories, construction or maintenance. And the longer people lived on the kibbutz the more polarized the sexual division of labour became"
Paraphrasing: Despite being given free childcare and the opportunity to work in whatever job they wanted women chose to be closer to their children and to spend less time working than men.

But how do we know the 60% of gifted women haven't just been so affected by their surroundings that they have decided to do what is 'normal' for women to do?

I'm not disagreeing with you as such and I'm not suggesting that every woman who chooses a traditional female role has done so because they've been brainwashed, far from it as that would be pretty insulting. I'm just musing really on how accurate any of this research canbe when we live in a sexist society.

But why are you "deeply dubious" scottishmummy?

lol,for millionth time dont exaggerate.im not trashing life time work?mmm no query findings,and any robust seasoned researcher will be adept at.indeed research is for dissemination and discussion

I find it rather odd and short sighted to dismiss the life's work of a scientist just because it doesn't fit with what you believe.

I don't really the idea that the fact that men need to be the main wage earners stops them from doing social jobs. Surely if men wanted to do these jobs then they would attract high salaries? Yet men have just chosen not to do them and that's why they don't attract high salaries. Not the other way around.

i remain deeply dubious as to methodology and summation

Yes her research is extensive and supported by statistics. It's based mainly on American society although there is a lot of input from European research too. Of course there are some exceptions, and you would be one of them but here stats are quite convincing. For example

60% of gifted women turn down promotions or take positions with lower pay so as to weave flexibility or social purpose into their work lives. That 60 percent reflects the women who choose to step off the career ladder rather than are pushed off by circumstances.

Her research looks into the fact that far more men than women tend to be on the extreme ends of the spectrum of behaviour - more men are criminals, more males have learning disabilities such as dyslexia and autism and more men are brilliant. There is a lot of biological evidence to say that this is due to the Y chromosome which makes men more vulnerable to disease and death but also more likely to be genii.

Interesting. My answer to your question at the end about men - Isn't it because they have been conditioned to be the main earner or bread winner?

I do see your point, and Pinker's, but with so much inequality around us (no matter how positive your upbringing) I just can't agree that our choices are free.

I would suggest that if she studied the women you mention, these were more anecdotale. My story is that i don't have to work in the purest sense. I don't particularly relish the thought of the lack of time I spend with my DD, but I wouldn't enjoy not having paid employment outside of my role as mother. So had she studied me, I would have disproved her theory.

Or does she use statics to back up the anecdotes?

Berkshire she looked mainly at women who had very equal upbringings. In fact many of the women had been specifically nutured to succeed and achieve due to obvious talent. For many of them it took them years to realise they didn't actually want the typically "male" version of success, some left very successful careers indeed to start at square one in medicine or social work. They weren't naive young women who didn't know their minds, or who had been brainwashed, they were capable middle aged women who'd had time to assess their priorities. In fact, many of them commented that they'd been brainwashed to believe that their more "feminine" desires - to have a family, to have a social job - were not good enough and not worthy of their talent.

Another way to look at it is - if men are free to choose whatever they want then why don't they choose the "female" professions?

Women didn't actually burn their bras. It's an urban myth created to mock the work that women of that time did which means that now we can decide if to take traditionally male work or female work.

Drastic action like that was needed at that time but the very fact that women are still arguing over whose job is 'harder' or more 'important' shows that there is still a long way to go.

I have always thought that back in the 60s/70s when women burned their bras and wanted to be treated like men (vis a vis work etc) they kind of missed the point. What they should have been saying is we want the role of mother and home maker to be given equal status with that of (for example) CEO. I don'[t myself think it is possible to be both at the same time without delegating the childare role to someone else.

I think as long as you are happy, ignore everyone else. I have been a f/t and p/t WM and am now a SAHM for over 12 years. I have helped in school and studied throughout most of that time. I have enjoyed every minute once I got through the first couple of years 'culture shock'! I think many feel isolated DUE TO the fact that they are looked down upon, if it were valued as paid work is then it may not be the case. I think being at home a long time distances you from the competetive world and I can see through things much better now. Alot of society doesn't make sense and I feel liberated to 'opt out'. I feel closer to my kids now due to the sheer amount if time I spend with them. I can always be there at school plays etc. I have that choice and appreciate that although it means sacrifices such as sharing a car and mainly UK holidays but that suits us.

I agree with the poster that said why should equality always mean being the same as men? Why are two working parents valued even if they need a third party involved to help yet a couple where one does the caring and one works, doing it all themselves, is not valued?

writer I am really interested to know whther Pinker discusses the subject of how we are conditioned as young females to perceive what we want to acheive and what we are able to acheive.
But I don't have time to read it can you expand please?

hopeforthebest I also feel that I had a very equal upbringing. I work in an industry where, if anything, women are more respected than men. We have an all female board and I'm paid way over what most men in my industry are paid... I beleive I am bringing my daughter up in an equal way as well, but I can't deny that no matter what I do, the image that is portrayed of women by the media and by others around her is inherantly sexist. Therefore, when she is an adult, if she chooses a traditionally female way of life (sahm, carer, teaching, cleaner, hairresser) how can I be sure if it is nature or nurture?

Hope, the 6th paragraph of your post is a bit unclear, but it seems like you have an interesting point to make, could you clarify it?

ali - well put. I'm a SAHM (almost) and your description of the father working all hours and coming home expecting to find children still up and welcoming is so true. I also agree wholeheartedly with your point on trying to find work that fits around the kids. I work sporadically as I don't have any backup at the moment, and any paid work I get is not worth getting childcare for as it's badly paid and irregular. I despair of getting back into a career, even though I'm well educated and conscientious. I'm sure other mums think I'm lazy (I'm not) and a bit of a loser (I'm not).

My confidence has gone, and with it my self-respect. All I wanted was to ensure DD has someone to come home to after school, but I seem to have paid a heavy price.

thats a v fatalistic and pessimistic synopsis if that is what pinker says (havent read it).it feeds into stereotypical women just not that into those kinds of careers and are wired differently. this notion of different gender hard-wiring holds women back and unwittingly supports "not womens' work about certain jobs/professions. and for as long as researchers promote this people cite it as if fact

writer I haven't read that book but unless she has studied the females from birth how canshe be sure if it is nature or nurture?