To consider retraining as a barrister?

[princessglitter]

I am a teacher in middle management with a fairly secure, reasonably satisfying career. I have always dreamed of a career in the law. Originally I considered becoming a solicitor, doing a conversion course and going down the LPC route.

However, at the last minute, I lost my nerve and pulled out of my college course. The idea of that amount of debt was horrifying to me.

I trained as a teacher, but has always felt unfulfilled if I'm honest. As I've got older, the idea of retraining as a barrister has become more appealing, but I am acutely aware that so many fall by the wayside. I have secured a mini-pupillage this summer, which I am extremely excited about. I am also going to apply for vacation schemes at solicitors' firms to enable me to make an informed decision.

I do have a strong academic background and an Oxbridge 2.1 - but I know that that alone will not be enough.

Am I unreasonable to take a risk (with my husband's support) and consider a career in the law? Possibly as a barrister, but I intend to research this thoroughly with some real experience in both areas and different specialisms.

wearenotinkansas - if your last post was written in answer to mine, please be aware my last post was addressed specifically to Xenia

wearenotinkansas,

I believe that every family makes choices that are right for them. For some families, it is for both parents to work, for others it is for one parent to work less or not at all, for others it is for both parents to work less or in jobs other than they might have worked had they remained childless.

I don't think one choice is better than another in any general sense. There are choices that are better for a particular family, and no-one from outside that family will ever have full knowledge of why those particular choices are the right ones.

My argument with Xenia is that she is claiming that her way is the only right one, and that women and families who choose other alternatives are 'less fulfilled' or 'less fair'. She has every right to organise her work and childcare as she has chosen to. So do you, and so do I. They are three different choices, and as long as those choices work well for all members of the family - both parents and children - then they are all right. If we swapped them round, they wouldn't be right because they wouldn't work for our particular families and circumstances - it doesn't mean that one or other of the choices are wrong or worse than another, they are just unique to the families we are in IYSWIM?

I am saying that it is also a political choice if you become a part time/mummy track/pin money woman and leave the big earning to men. That diminishes other women and harms your daughters' prospects and makes it more likely your son will also want a housewife as that will be his cultural norm.

Once we are in a position where women hold 50%+ of cabinet and FTSE 100 board posts without anyone batting an eye lid then indeed men and women can take personal choices as to whether they stay home or not but until then every decision of a woman to down grade hercareer and let the man's come first is a little death for the rest of us and a betrayal iof those women who went before you to give you legal rights to own property, qualify as doctors and lawyers and indeed have equal pay for work of equal value.

On this one as the wife of that lib dem leader had to say recently - would these questions really also be asked of a man? Usually not and therefore sexism is at their core.

"But Xenia - presumably whilst you were/are forging ahead at the vanguard of feminist liberation, enjoying your wonderful career, you gave some thought to your DCs and the quality of care they were receiving while you were working (or did you just assume that it was irrelevant who was caring for/teaching them, since your offspring were sure to succeed anyway?)
If you did in fact care about childcare, did you have any respect for those people who provided it? Did you consider that there was any skill involved in their work? That it had any value?
Who was providing that care?"

LIke all adults who work full time with chidlren including most men I know most of whom have full time working wives, children have an effect on your work - of course they do . We all compromise every day because of our children. no one on mumsnet will probably have done more childcare than I have as most of you have 1 or 2 children and even if you stayed home for 7 years full tikem that will be less than the childcare I have done with 5 chidlren over 26 nearly 27 years. I have done lots of it and made loads of compromises all the time. I am not saying parents of both genders should not but make sure it is non sexist. Make sure it's not muggins female who ends up compromising and Mr Big Guy high earner never sullies his little hands with scrubbing the loo.

Why would a parent m ale or female not respect the person they choose (and plenty of men choose childcare ni the real world of non sexist marriages not jut women) to look after their children. I respect very much all people who work for me and have done so which is why they have tended to stay so long. The skills of lceaning and child care as we klnow is worth about £5.80 an hour - the minimum wage. It m ay be marginally less if we abolished minimum wages. I know the value of those services as do we all. I respect all peopel regardless of what they earn but that is the value of those services. The market determines that.

I was going to say no, it's not a political but a personal choice - and then I have stopped. It IS a political choiice.

I have CHOSEN, as a highly intelligent and exceptionally well-educated woman, to look after my own children because I believe that it is a job as important, as fulfilling and as valuable, as any job I could have done in the world of paid empoloyment. And that appears to be a political statement.

I hope that I have instilled in both my children the same values - that one's value as a person is not the same as the amount one gets paid - and will be entirely happy whether either, both or neither choose to express this belief in the way that I have.

I agree with you Xenia that every time a professional woman chooses to SAHM or "mummy track" it does make it harder for other women to stay FT and rise to the top of the profession - for many, many reasons.

But that's just what happens when there is a category of people in a minority in terms of the choices they make.

Being in a minority is always hard because the world is built around what the majority do. That doesn't however mean that the majority should do things differently from how they want to, just to make life easier for the minority. It means we should protect the rights of the minority who want to make other choices, and attack any prejudices or expectation that the minority will behave in the same way as the majority.

I do think the world of work needs to change for all so that it is acceptable to work flexibly for everybody and take time out (including those without kids of course). If we stick the male requirement of working a 50-70 hour week to progress to the top of a profession then I think we have lost the battle to be honest.

Children need parents - mother or father not just paid childcare or boarding school.

So who is going to work the nights and weekends - essential in so many lines of work - if everyone can work flexibly and take time out?

Goodness me, whatever happened to sisterhood and mutual respect! I had a quick click on this thread because, as a successful, but pregnant and apprehensive, barrister of ten years call, I was wondering what the outcome of the discussion was. I was slightly shocked to see that a group of clearly intelligent and interesting women have ended up so polarised.

Surely we have evolved sufficiently to recognise that the best way women can position themselves for equality is to work as team, ensuring that women have equal rights and opportunities to make their own choices in life? Of course girls should have the same education as their brothers and be brought up to understand that they can achieve whatever they choose in life if they work hard and show focus. Doing the best you can do academically means options.

But why then do we all have to have such strong opinions that our choice is the right choice? I work some silly hours, deal with a great amount of stress, but have an exciting job that pays pretty well. That doesn't mean I am not worrying about how things will work when my child comes along and what I will want to do when he or she does. My friends and family cross the spectrum of life and career choices and I love and respect them all for doing whatever it is that makes them and their families as happy as can be. They make for an interesting bunch of women and my life would be endlessly dull if they had all made the same choices as me.

When my baby is born, what I hope is that whatever decision I make - continue to work full throttle, row back the work but carry on with my career, or give up completely - will be supported by the people who love me, particularly the women. Why can't we recognise that the important thing is to give girls good opportunities and a breadth of experience to allow them to make informed choices, whatever that might be. Career girl, half and half or full time mum. So what, as long as it is an imformed choice? Isn't that better than mud slinging at each other and trying to foist our own decisions on other people!

And for all the people professing hard and fast opinions about what life is like at the Bar: it depends on who you are, what area you practice in, how good your chambers is and how good you are. There is no such thing as a typical barrister, like there is no such thing as a typical mum! It is a tough but rewarding career and most of us care about what we do and the people we do it for.

I wish you all the best of luck and happiness, whatever your choices have been! x

The reason it matters that you (MockCroc) don't downgrade a great career when your husband (if you have one) does not is because it then affects other women. If one of you h as to work less hard let it be he and then you benefit other women and also make it easier for other men also to downsize a bit when babies are born. Thus will we reach a position where 50% + per haps even 60% of QCs and senior judges are female. We will never get there is most women opt out to a mummy track.

Also most of those giving up wor don't realise how mind numbingly boring being a domestic slave is. They can't always then admit it and have to pretend they love the hours of cleaning up after the 3 under 5s bu t most of us male or female know that our babies are adorable for a few hours a day but after that it's pretty nice and just as good for babies if we get on with work which fulfils us and keeps us happy rather than diong the low grade domestic stuff 24/7. I write that as amother of 5 who has adored pregnancy and breastfeeding so much Ih ave spread it over 27 years and still enjoy it every single day but always in the same smallish doses most men prefer.

All over this planet in all periods of history women and men have delegated house cleaning and child care. Romans had slaves. The Indians in Africa use their African servants. The Chinese have servants. Britain had and still has millions of nannies and domestics. Many cultures strap the baby to a board or leave it with older siblings or grannies. Very few cultures once women or men can afford or find someone to help will then h ave women and men choosing even so to be with the children 24/7 because it's dull. Never fall into that domestic trap. You'll regret it later.

Xenia you could make the same point in reverse about men.

Every time a man doesn't take time off or go p/t when he has a child, he makes it much harder for the (minority) of men who do want to do that - because the expectation is then reinforced that men don't do childcare.

Do you think that all men ought to have a period of time when they SAHD or go on a "daddy track" - even if they don't want to - in order to redress the balance?

Re your last post: "They can't always then admit it and have to pretend they love the hours of cleaning up after the 3 under 5s bu t most of us male or female know that our babies are adorable for a few hours a day but after that it's pretty nice and just as good for babies if we get on with work which fulfils us and keeps us happy"

Come on - there are loads of women who absolutely hate WOH and love spending 24/7 with their babies. They're not all in denial. You are lucky to enjoy your job, I know plenty who hate theirs. Please, please Xenia stop making daft sweeping statements. You are undermining the excellent points you make by doing so.

I will bsolutely admit that I am not a babies person. I would cheerfully have gone back to work when my eldest was 3 months old - but as I said before I was abroad and could not.

And I was so glad that I didn't. Once a baby can respond, enjoy a book, respond to music, giggle like a maniac every time they are tickled - and even better once they can walk and talk - it is a joy to spend time with them. Looking after a toddler and young child is soooo much more than the 'domestic drudgery' of looking after a tiny baby - they learn so fast, they respond so well, they play the best and silliest games and are endlessly curious and see things with new eyes that we have long since thought banal.

Essentially, I have enjoyed my children more and more the older they get, whiuch is why I rejoice that my choice of new career gives me a chunk of time (within a 60-70 hour week) each day after school to spend time with them.

It's funny, I can see in Xenia a 'path I didn't take' - I can see that had I had the option to return to work after 3 months with my eldest, I could have thought 'WHY would anyone choose to spend more time with a baby?'... it was partly by chance and because I'm deeply stubborn in my convictions that I stuck it out and got the huge rewards in the end.

Xenia you have gone too far in equating mothers who wish to stay at home to raise their children as 'domestic slaves'. How dare you.

Please open your mind to the possibility that there are a great many mothers who absolutely adore being at home with their children.

I have a cleaner by the way and my dh shares responsibilities in the home. Nor everyone fits your outdated generalisations. Please give it a rest. Next you'll be calling us slaves to our children and whores to our men. It is incredibly offensive to be generalising the way you are and to trivialise the lives others choose to lead.

And I should add that I adore getting the chance to play an hour's uninterrupted piano a day, to be where I want to be when I want to be and to wear what I damn well please.

If things are going so well at the bar for you I'm amazed you have time to post such long and (ill) considered posts.

There is the analogy of housewifery to prostitution except that the latter if the more honest bargain.

I love being with my chidlren as do most men and women but most of us prefer it a few hours a day and far far too many women later regret their lower income and are left high and dry by a man or circumstances. you might like to sing wheels ona bus 40 times a day for 5 years but you might be diong your child a disservice by exposing it to the ris of economic hardship by doing so and your nanny might be just as good with the toddler sing songs for 9 hours and you and your husband can do the other hours, which is plenty hours for most of us.

Xenia you do your cause more harm than good. This isn't a war where women should feel obliged to pursue a career for the sake of womankind. Im no slave to a man and I'm certainly not going to be a slave to women like you and your ideology. Part time lawyer and proud mummy of one

I have just desisted from any engagement with Xenia on the Vogue thread because it gives me the creeps.

Xenia you frequently fail to answer others' questions.

You also glide over the perfectly valid examples people cite which directly contradict your argument that SAHMs produce supine daughters. It was the same on the thread where you insisted that SAHMs were guilty of a dereliction of duty in not earning school fees to provide their DC with a private education.

There's no inherently better or worse way to live but to claim the moral high ground over mothers like me is absurd. You don't have it any more than I do. It's clear that as a SAHM I've produced exactly the sort of daughters through state education which you argue can only be produced by career mums and good private schools.

How does that work?

Why would anyone think one random example proves anything? Only a housewife would presumably come out with such a point. If women work 5 years and then give it up employers get fed up (or in fact in some cases it suits them as they solve the problem of too many younger people coming up the tree). That leaves men to fill the top of the tree or pyramid might be the better analogy. It is children of housewives who expect to give up work to have babies and sons of housewives who expect their wives to put their career second but never theirs of course.

It is a political and moral issue. It is terribly important.

The example is widely mirrored amongst people I know and isn't random. I doubt my acquaintance is especially unique. It doesn't fit with your breathtakingly narrow interpretation of female choice, but yours is a weak reply Xenia: you repeat your tired old out of touch views, redolent of the 70's (before my time), but there's nothing of substance there, mere prejudice. Are you dissatisfied in some aspect of your life that you need to justify your choice in the face of perfectly moderate and well reasoned opposition?

It's amusing that you think all previous education and intellectual training is lost once a woman stops work. I'm still exactly the same as I was 20 years ago and haven't atrophied in any measurable way, why would I have done?

You using the term 'housewife' in a deliberately derogatory way reflects on you Xenia, not on those you'd like to bracket under that silly meaningless and also out of date term.

Maybe you should address your own issues before trying to impose your rigid and impoverished views on those who've made different choices and are as comfortable with them as you claim to be with yours.

I am not, and never have been a housewife - my house is not important to me, and I do not attach great value to the work I share with my husband and children to maintain it and run it smoothly.

I am, and always will be, a mother - my children are consumingly important to me, and I attach huge value to the work I share with my husband to bring them up, much more value than I have ever attached to any of my careers (in all of which, I have to say, I have been very 'successful' in the narrow terms Xenia values in terms of monetary reward. 'position power' and career progression).

What teacher said.

Xenia please stop with the generalisations. I am a SAHM but both my parents worked. My siblings and I mourned the absence of our mother in our daily routines and my mother mourned being involved in our lives. So, once again Xenia, you make statements which are laughably generalistic and inaccurate.

I will repeat a point I have made many times. Feminism is and should be about equality of opportunity. If a woman wishes to pursue whatever career outside of the home she should be absolutely free to do so and no barriers should be erected in her way by reason of her sex. Similarly, should a woman (or a man for that matter) wish not to work outside the home but rather raise their children, she/he should be supported in that decision. The moment feminism brands a mother who loves being at home to raise her children a slave/whore the battle is lost.

Absolutely Poppy.

My mother raised me and my brothers to have choices about career paths, and to recognise that the 'intrinsic value' of a person or activity or career is not the same as 'monetary value' (all 3 of us have had 'portfolio careers' across a wide spectrum - SAHM, SAHD, composer, teacher, headteacher, IT project manager, knowledge manager, product developer, project manager, research scientist, freelance musician, cathedral organist, internet radio entrepreneur, missionary). Equally, I am raising my children to have choices about their career paths....

But it's always the women who get saddled with it and therefore so few of them progress to any positions of power in the UK. That is the more important cause, not whether you have 10 hours a day to mop up baby sick of 2.

Xenia I didn't get saddled with motherhood and staying at home. I chose to do it and you on another thread have celebrated the fact that in the UK there is significant choice in how we educate our children. There is also significant choice in how we bring them up and that too is to be celebrated. And actually, why don't I have any power as a woman who spent 8 years at home and supported her husband to be a very successful professional? Do I never mix with a member of the cabinet? Do I never mix with a sucessful business person whom you may have read about in the press? Do I never mix with a high court judge? Do I not say good morning to an MP every day? Do I not know any newspaper editors? Do I not send my children to school with the children of the famous? You know all that do you, when you make exceptionally rude and patronising statements about women like me. You may know all of those people, but do they smile when they see you? Do they give you a kiss on both cheeks and send you a Christmas card? Do they pop round to yours for a moan and a coffee/gin? If you were in deep trouble do you have anyone who could help and would do so without submitting a bill?