Should we more honest about the impact of children in careers ?

[mids2019]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13184193/Lily-Allen-insists-choosing-motherhood-pop-stardom-love-children-ruined-career.html

Is Lily Allen being honest here and saying something that a lot of women (and possibly men) realise but don't openly admit to?

I think in a fundamental sense she has a point in that for women celebs and athletes having children if not logistically 'managed' can destroy a career. For women athletes the reality is for many having children is normally done at the still end of a career with the understanding at an elite level pregnancy and early years child reading can be difficult while meeting the extreme demands of competitive sport. You could argue Taylor Swift may or may not have had the career she had if she had given birth to a couple of children (possibly losing a little career momentum because of being out of the limelight for 2 or 3 years).

On the more mortal level having children can push you back on a career path as part time working may put you back relative to your peers and as children get older it becomes more difficult to move due to schooling and children friendship ties. Having children means there may be less opportunity to 'put in the extra mile to further you career by gaining a 'hard working' reputation.

Should we be more honest about this in society and admit even in 2024 there are sacrificed to be made having childen? Are these sacrifices something we can put down to a lifestyle choice of do we need to continue to press to remove any career disadvantage having children may bring?

Why is that though? Why aren’t men questioned/expected to consider taking this sort of care of their children? Presumably mothers aren’t using their genitals to do any of the care, so why them?

But the father could stop working. Or they both find part-time work. It gives them respite from home-life

This is a really great point.

Previously an argument for businesses and wider society becoming more family friendly was that it was in everyone's interest. Afterall, the vast majority of people would have children at some point so almost everyone would benefit from this provision. It also made sense from a business perspective as so much of the workforce would be looking for family friendly policies so this was an important provision for hiring and retaining the right staff. In this context it is a complete no brainer to put in place family friendly policies that can be seen as enablers to the economy and society.

Now with more and more people not having children then understandably there is a challenge to this status quo. If having children is seen as a choice then there will always be a significant group of people that believe that choice have consequences and the rest of society shouldn't necessarily be responsible for accommodating these choices. Capitalism is competitive and someone that has chosen to not have children and focus on their career could rightly or wrongly feel that they have a competitive advantage. They are going 'all in' on their careers when many parents simply can't do the same. Also if a business can find enough of the right employees that don't need flexibility and accommodating then you can see how it would be tempting to go down this route rather than bending over backwards for families.

Obviously like most of us on MN, I think that family friendly policies and assisting parents and mothers in particular to work is really important but I do think it's important to acknowledge the shift in people not having so many children and how this could impact the overall perception of whether these policies are 'necessary'.

Would it? Genuinely don’t know the economics

I do think it’s a real shame the early years I sing wasn’t more of a choice - childcare from 9 months or a contribution to continuing maternity leave for the rest of the year. I’m assuming this is at least partly because per child it’s cheaper to pay nurseries.

Well there is the economic argument that the more money there is sloshing around an economy, the more is spent. Until you get to a certain level then some of it is siphoned off into savings which only benefit the saver (rather than the multiplier effect when we spend on domestically produced goods and services)

A similar argument is used for universal basic income - which if it applied to all adults in a country, would mean that, indeed, women (or a parent) could be "paid" for staying at home with their children.

As you point out, it is Mumsnet and the focus on here is unrepresentative of the broader population; even on MN the interest in provisions is being questioned more and more so how does that realistically look for progressive policies in this area that the public are behind.

Saying you don't believe in gender stereotypes or pointing out that a woman won't be taking care of their kids "with their genitals", so men are just as capable of taking care of kids as women are denies the truth that many of us know -- biology will dictate that the maternal instincts kick in and the majority of women will have the overwhelming urge to ensure their children are cared for in a way that I don't see with men. I assume that is the case even where a woman adopts a child, but for most women the hormonal rollercoaster that ensues when a woman gives birth to a child is very different to what happens to men. Biology ensures that women care for their offspring. You can argue that men also have these instincts, but I don't believe that many, if any, are literally being forced by their hormones in the way women are.

@OneMoreTime23 and @Brefugee I don't have any children with special needs myself, so I'm not speaking from personal experience.

Some suggestions are:-

• Both parents are working equal hours, but the husband earns more than the wife, so the family will be better off financially if the wife gives up work.

• The wife was working part-time and the husband was working full-time, so the family will be better off financially if the wife gives up work.

• The wife was already a SAHM (perhaps intending to go back to work when the children were older), so she's a full-time carer already.

• It's a single parent family and the father has little or no involvement with the kids.

• The family is from a class/culture with very traditional values, where the husband is the breadwinner and the wife tends to the home and family. The husband would be the subject of shame and ridicule from his social circle, if he stayed home with his children and sent his wife out to work.

• Social conventions. There's an assumption that women are more caring and nurturing than men and so would be better suited to a caring role.

By the way, I've based most of the above on the assumption that the parents are a man and a woman. I'm aware that families come in all shapes and sizes these days and that some families are headed by two men or two women. I've already referred to single mothers.

This comes back to the point about schools and teachers having no autonomy and no control, hugely disrespected by the public and blamed for everything (not saying you are like this I just mean in general), probably stemming from the fact that it's mainly women in these roles.
When I was teaching the number of times I kept a child in school after judging they would likely survive until the end of the day, only to be slagged off on social media later, complained about to the head, verbally abused by the parent. In the end, I just used to call home because I was so afraid of doing the wrong thing or getting into trouble, blamed. This is related to huge wider issue towards educators. Sadly the attitude, threats and abuse from the minority mean that many teachers are just scared and so don't want to risk it.

None of those should bear challenge though. Women’s pay is generally lower because it is expected that we will do the bulk of childcare. That’s a self-fulfilling prophecy across the generations because “it makes financial sense”.

We, individually and together, need to challenge that from the early years. Me seeing that my mum’s career was equally as important as my dad’s meant I never expected to be staying at home or going part time. DD seeing that my career is equally important to DH’s should have the same effect.

My mum and I both married men that wanted children more than we did. My dad did the bulk of the child related stuff once we were past breastfeeding. DH is doing the bulk of it now.

I know several women whose husbands were/are SAHP.

There needs to be more talk of this with our daughters, and more holding men to account for the care of their children.

I think we need to look at what women want though.

Most of the senior women I work with have a house husband or a husband working part time. That would also be my set up if we had children. However I speak to plenty of women at work who would NEVER carry on working to allow their husband to give up work, and who want to go part time and spend more time with the children.

That decision will inevitably impact on your career, whether you’re male or female.

There is a question about whether women are conditioned to want to stay home and that their decision is just a manifestation of gender bias in society. I do think one parent has to sacrifice career for a while when children are young, and women often choose for it to be them.

Good for Lily for speaking about it. Also I can't stand her music so thank you to Lily's kids for taking her off the scene.

One of the issues is that so many employers seem obsessed with holding on to the idea that work can only be done full time, glued to an office desk. .

That might work for the average university leaver and healthy young or middle aged man who has a partner doing all the childcare and eldercare at home

But it makes it harder for mothers, carers, people with disabilities/health conditions, single parents and some older people to find and stay in employment.

They are so many more options: job share, part-time work, compressed hours, home working yet we have employers stuck in the dark ages who even openly discriminate agains anyone who does not fit their narrow view of an employee. Then they complain they can't get and retain good staff.

Governments really need to do more to normalise various work patterns and address childcare issues. Our productivity is low in this country and it has a lot to do with Jurassic work practices.

Yeah I guess it could be like that. We’ve been doing it for four years so have got it pretty well worked out. We’re a collaborative bunch and also support grads and apprentices so have worked hard on ensuring opportunity exists for networking / building relationships / alignment across the organisation. We also partly WFH prior to lockdown so were well placed with established practices before pivoting to solely online.

A large part of the issue is that once you’re out you can’t get back in. Employers look so negatively on a gap in your CV, even if there’s a valid reason like having kids. I was out for a few years and got rejected from every single job I applied for because employers said I was out of practice at timekeeping and being in a commercial environment. At that point I had potentially another 30 years to work but nobody would hire me. Prior to pregnancy I had two degrees and fifteen years of work experience, which I was told was basically worthless because I’d been out of the workplace for a couple of years.

where does mental health come into that? i totally get that people will make what they feel are rational decisions based on finances, but that doesn't take into account that for some people there is a need not to be doing all the home-making/childcare (me for eg. If i hadn't been fired while pregnant my plan was to take 6 months off, then DH would take over. Most likely i would have stayed at 1 DC)

What happens if the main earner has a catrastophic event (death, incapacity)?
What happens if women just aren't maternal (me again) and just don't want to?

Gender stereotypes/roles are awful for many many reasons. But the idea that I'd just be expected to suck up doing all the home stuff, part-time non-job (as in one i wouldn't choose for myself in the normal course of things), stupidly tiny pension, just because I'm a woman was what made me determined not to have any DCs (until the point when i had a plan - and that went tits up)

anecdote, because personal experience matters (and lots and lots of them add up to actual data): i was nearly suicidal with being at home with 2 children under 2 and a husband in a vocational-type but badly paid job. Others are very different and that is why modern society needs to make some changes/compromises so that the maximum number of people can live something adjacent to their best lives most of the time. Because we all, including employers, all benefit from that.

That is awful of course. But having told our DCs school on several occasions (including details of exactly when i would resume Contact1 duties) didn't stop the head calling me in Korea and demanding to know what i was going to do about my sick DC - even though I had personally told her the plan and to call my DH. So swings and roundabouts sometimes.

But it does highlight that we don't just need to think about caring for babies and preschoolers. We need watertight plans for Primary and at least the first 2 years of secondary too.

@Ellovera2

I absolutely understand that and it must be so hard for the teachers (an extremely hard profession!)

I agree you can't win but I think an appreciation that getting a parent to collect a child can be quite a big decision. It's mostly women (shouldn't be the case) that the burden of collection falls on and it can be really problematic when you are in a responsible position or need cover. I guess it is hard to pull a teacher from a lesson for their own child's illness for instance.

I think the problem here lies with parents that attack teachers for not informing parents of a very minor illness. Maybe parents could be informed and given an option of early collection but I don't know the guidelines situation with that.

It can also take time for cover to be arranged and to travel to collect a child and it's been the case where I have arrived 15 minutes before the end of the school day.

the collecting DCs from school when sick is interesting. Like people in the medical world, do teachers tend to marry other teachers? If so how do they decide which one collects a sick child?

TBH a lot of the AIBU or relationships questions here could be solved with the adults actually discussing things with each other, so it is a lot to think that people might discuss this kind of thing too?

I feel exactly the same way

@mids2019 I totally agree. Also provision is an issue. I haven't had a TA in class for years. There's no school nurse. I've got to teach a lesson, I've got no adult support, and observation, SEN pupils with no support, behaviour issues etc, it's lunch time and the child can't go outside but I need go to a meeting or prepare stuff for the afternoon so there's no-one to look after the child. It's a system-wide problem when teachers and parents would of course rather the kids be in school.
Funnily enough when I was a teacher I was never the default parent to call as it's just not flexible like that. Now I WFH I am though.

Mum was a teacher. Dad a uni lecturer.

I had an accident in secondary school and a week later a 2 inch splinter of glass came out of my forehead and my mum made me wait on the wall outside school till she had finished teaching to come and get me. Was a couple of hours, at least.

There really has to be caution about stepping back from a career as in reality you may never get back. You are soon forgotten.

PT for many is important and without it parents , mainly women, can be forced from the workplace.

It is jobs where you are viewed as non professional for sticking to your contracted hours that are the worst as parents struggle with expectations.

It is rightly wrong to not ask about children or family plans at an interview but I am curious if you do find a new job when do you inform your manager and colleagues ? Pregnancy can be not a career killer in the NHS but is a pregnancy soon after employment a point where managers start to think about 'managing out' with more ruthless organisations?

Anecdotally I know a medic who has 3 children during her junior years including maternity leave and stepping back from her career. It looks like she has screwed her training to such an extent that she is not being supported towards a consultant role. A career destroyed by children?

Haven't read the full thread. However I feel we have come a long way as workplaces accept the responsibility that men have towards their children too. Yes when breastfeeding, it is challenging to be away from the baby and you need to recover from the birth. However, afterwards, it is a family decision about how the two people choose to work. Of course sacrifices need to be made but they don't all need to be from one person

I am surrounded by people whose careers have not suffered due to having children or those whose original career has suffered, have created an alternative one.

I conclude that it depends on the person and the couple

I was never as ambitious as my husband. So whilst i can say my career suffered as a result of having children, i definitely got the better end of the deal as I got to spend so much time with them

@chopc

I think it is also dependent on employer.

In addition I don't know if everyone quite has the liberty to choose how to work.

Obviously men can parent and take that responsibility but it takes a brave man in an alpha male culture to start asking for extended paternity leave or flexible hours. Some sectors it works; others not so much

I think children can and do limit careers. For instance I won't move to another city for employment as it would involve moving my children from school and friends. A lot of my colleagues are in similar positions.