Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to think that I CAN have it all?

223 replies

TransatlanticCityGirl · 21/09/2011 22:27

I was watching The Wright Stuff Extra the other day and once again, the whole "it's just not possible to have it all" topic came up again. Oh Lord....

This debate often leads me to wonder:

Just what exactly do these women define as "having it all"? Have they set their standards to an impossibly high level? And then and only then will they be happy?

How come men never worry about "having it all"? Do they think they already have it? Do they not want it? Or simply that would they rather just watch telly rather than think about it?

I personally think I CAN have it all, and while it may not be a walk in the park, it is not impossible and it doesn't even take an exceptional kind of woman to achieve it either. And in much the same way as money earned is far more rewarding that money won, achieving a happy well-rounded life will be far more rewarding that taking an easier route, e.g. sacrificing either my career or the family I want.

I believe that I can and will have it all. And in fact, I believe I already have it (although I do plan on taking it to the next level when I am ready). There is nothing more at this particular point in my life that I would want. I have an amazing husband, a daughter who brings me joy, a successful career, a lovely home, financial security, good friends and a recipe for the bestest cupcakes ever.

So what's the big deal? Why am I always hearing other women on TV complaining that you just can't have it all?

OP posts:
scotchmeg · 22/09/2011 14:15

I'm completely uniterested in the sahm/wohm who's better so called debate. However, I do find it interesting to talk about why people made the choices they made.

"I think many SAHMs make their choice because they believe it is beneficial for children to have a full-time parent around to take care of them" how often is this true? How often do parents who genuinely enjoy and want to work and build a career decide to leave paid work to be SAHM, purely because they beleive it is better for the children?

There are obviously people who beleive that it is better for children to have a parent at home. But would that truely be enough to make such a huge sacrifce? particularly as without evidence to prove this is the case it is an even bigger sacrifice.

Most SAHPs that I know either didn't particularly enjoy paid work any way and aren't career focussed, or, they had a very good career which they loved but planned to become a SAHP when their children came along as they wanted to spend time with them and watch them grow up in a more hands-on way than if they were at the office from 8-6.

Similarly, i think that parents who decide to both work when they have children, do so because either they have to for financial reasons, or, because they choose to. No one works purely because they think it is for the benefit of the child because again, there is no proof that this is the case.

bugster · 22/09/2011 14:16

Iliketherain some people (including myself) did point out that Xenia was being offensive to SAHM. I asked Xenia a couple pf questions but she hasn't answered

bugster · 22/09/2011 14:24

Scotchmeg I think you are right about the different reasons people choose to be SAHM or work full time or something in between, and you rightly said that noone really decides to work full time baecause they think that's the best thing for their children. I think it's wrong to condemn them or say they are a bad parent but can they at least be honest that they are either doing it out of financial necessity or because they feel fulfilled by having a career, instread of saying that the reason they are doing it is for the benefit of the children because they are so much better off spending most of their time with a child carer rather than a parent. Noone believes that surely?

iliketherain · 22/09/2011 14:31

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

minipie · 22/09/2011 14:33

Actually bugster I think that sometimes it is possible for children to be better off having two WOHP and spending time with a child carer. It depends entirely on what the parents are like and what the child is like and what the childcarer is like. For example I had a nanny growing up and saw my parents early mornings, evenings and weekends. My nanny was better at lots of things, like playing silly games and doing other small-child activities, than my parents were. My parents were better at other things like helping with homework and talking about personal problems etc. So I got the best of both worlds. If my mum or dad had been a SAHP, I would have missed out on a lot of the stuff my nanny was great at.

Original poster
TransatlanticCityGirl · 22/09/2011 14:56

I completely agree with those who pointed out that having it all is subjective. I think that the spirit of the expression is that one has a multi faceted life that is fulfilling. However for reasons unknown to me our society seems to think it means having a high powered career while simultanously being a perfect mother and dutiful wife who cooks everything from scratch, always looks pulled together, and basically never makes a mistake.

Does it really matter who does the cleaning, who bakes the cupcakes, and whether the kids have fish fingers for dinner once in a while? Every woman (and man) has different ways of making things work for them and their families.

There was a time in my life when children were not part of my plan and that was ok... And maybe there will come a day when my career becomes less important to me and I choose to do something else instead.

Here's where I take issue however: when people make broad based statements like 'it's not possible to have it all'. True, not every person will have it all. And no one ever said it was easy or claimed you can have it while getting a full nights sleep each and every day. Things that are worth doing are rarely easy.

I also take issue with the notion that those who have it all were lucky. Luck sometimes plays a part but mostly it takes determination and a positive attitude as some have pointed out. If you believe it's not possible to have it all, then I'm pretty confident that you will never have it.

I also don't believe for a moment that a woman who works is not raising her own children. In much the same way a CEO of a successful company never does every little task him or herself, a good mother is able to judge which jobs she needs to do herself and which jobs can and should be delegated for the benefit of her child. Since every child and family is different, there are many different ways of doing this and no two mothers will ever agree on a single best way.

OP posts:
Ormirian · 22/09/2011 14:59

Give it back NOW quenelle! How very dare you steal my it! I need it ALL!

SeoraeMaeul · 22/09/2011 15:01

Ponders if there is a parallel universe where there is a men's forum debating the same thing?

Why is this an area where it feels like the women are more sexist about each other than the men are? I've done both, VP level of FTSE 100 and housewife - I don't recall checking in my brains at some kind of left luggage depot and checking them back out again when I moved between the two roles. Surely having it all means I get that choice?

And isnt it nice to have the luxury of this debate when sometimes its a matter of keeping a roof over your head or food on the table that dictates whether you work or not? Bloody hell I wish my mum - who held down 2 jobs whilst raising us after a shitty divorce - had the same chance. No she just managed to work it all out and still end up being her daughters best friends as they grew up. Gosh maybe she is Wonder Woman ;)

bugster · 22/09/2011 15:03

Ok minipie perhaps it is sometimes good if all the variables are right as you say. There are always exceptions. I think a nanny is anyway much better for a child than childcare outside the home, if it's a full time child care situation (otherwise some nurseries can be really good part time).

AlpinePony · 22/09/2011 15:03

scotchmeg I very much agree with you. Within my own peers, frequently the ones who choose to become SAHM's are those who "worked" but were never driven. Some might say of course that I have the "wrong peers" because they know plenty of CEO's of multinationals who chose to sing the wheels on the bus. Wink

bugster · 22/09/2011 15:09

Alpinepony and Scotchmeg, you could be right that those who become SAHM often were never really intensely driven, ambitious leader types. How many people are anyway? (whether men or women). I think one of the problems with this 'having it all' notion is that it assumes everyone is or should be like that.

LieInsAreRarerThanTigers · 22/09/2011 15:30

OK, here's the truth. I have had it all but it has taken about 25 years!
18-22 fun and interesting degree including year in France getting fluent. Lots of boyfriends.
22 chalet girl for a season
23 - 32 director of green entrepreneurial company then self-employed in same field. Great relationship, marriage, financial stability and home ownership. Further education.
32 motherhood SAHM
33-34 part-time work
37 motherhood again
38 - now part-time work, interesting job but nothing to do with my degree, to fit around family life. Move to 'country', successful property investments...
breakdown of marriage Sad

Some very interesting and thought-provoking, as well as the usual rude and infuriating Angry posts on this thread!

Mum2Phoebelicious · 22/09/2011 15:36

I wholeheartedly agree that "having it all" is very subjective, and I would count myself as very lucky to be able to say, for me, I do have all I would want. A fabulous dd, a brilliant dh, a lovely home, a challenging, rewarding career that allows me to travel. However, thats only because of my brilliant dh doing everything when I'm not there and my lovely lovely pops doing 2 days of childcare every week so we don't have to spend all our desposible income on nursery fees. Without them, and all the support we have from other family and friends I would have to give some of it up.
But the amount of time I spend away from my family / stress of ft(+ some) work is definitely seen as a sacrifice by some of my mum friends so my "all" is not everyone's idea of fun.
So I suppose we can have it all but only if we're willing / lucky to be able to spread the load a bit imo.

Sleepyspaniel · 22/09/2011 15:58

I do think you can feel like you are winning in the husband, children, friends, career, lifestyle factors - but not all together, all the time. All relationships are transient, people move, bad things happen to good people, and vice versa. Your top marriage might collapse. Your company might go down. All you know it, TODAY, do you feel like you are enjoying most of your life and if the answer's yes then you do have it all, for today, at least. Tomorrow might be a different story. Enjoy what you have, try to improve what you don't enjoy.

C4ro · 22/09/2011 16:17

Ack finally, a post I fully agree on having failed to fit in any of the rather rigid boxes described so far;
likes sleepyspaniels post.

chill1243 · 22/09/2011 16:50

At a certain age there is something to be said for being satisfied with what youve got. After all, "having it all" is a vague phrase"

And having it all while others have nothing leaves something to be desired

Since Maggie we have gone through a selfish phase. Is there light at the end of the tunnel?

mrsgboring · 22/09/2011 16:56

"Having it all" is a vile phrase, which seems to me to be designed to make women who want to work and have children sound greedy - basically conjures up the image of a massive pie on the table and instead of hanging back demurely and letting everyone have a turn, greedy Career Woman leans in and grabs the lot.

We should not engage with this twaddle

chill1243 · 22/09/2011 17:09

WordFactory has a fascinating take on the subject. But as MrsBoring says GREED does come into it as well.

Come you two, please tell, where do we men stand in this debate.? Did we not get a mention on the TV debate? Anxiety is driving me to public thumb sucking.

Xenia · 22/09/2011 17:18

The fact the debate is even had is very sad. Men and women often choose to work. No one ever questions male choices in the way women's are questioned. No one suggests men are damaging their children or not bringing up their children because they work.

I agree with the selfish points too. Most parents put their children first which in many cases means both parents working as that can hugely benefit the children. In fact staying home with the children 24/7 can be very damaging. No hgousewife should play the martyr and think that is somehow the best choice. The best choice is a rounded life of work and family.

jellybeans · 22/09/2011 17:18

'"I think many SAHMs make their choice because they believe it is beneficial for children to have a full-time parent around to take care of them'

I agree and feel this is partly why I am a SAHM. Other reasons are that it works out better me doing the caring and DH working as a partnership between us without 3rd parties (childcare) and stress/juggling-which we tried after DD1.

I feel you can't have everything in life, but if you are happy then you are certainly doing well. I love being a SAHM, I am also studying for a degree. I feel I have enough in my life to have what i want, I don't crave a career at all (although this may change when kids are older etc). I don't even mind if people look down on me for SAH. I just feel i have everything as I want in life and am lucky for that. Of course for others, a career may well be important or needed and in that case that is great too. Life is short, do what makes you happy!

jellybeans · 22/09/2011 17:20

'The best choice is a rounded life of work and family.'

In your opinion. 'Work' as we know it is a recent thing. Years ago the work of caring for kids was seen as much 'work' as outside the home. The best choice is different for all parents!

chill1243 · 22/09/2011 17:22

points well made, But life is also a drama as well as a romance. Re Shakespeare

jellybeans · 22/09/2011 17:24

agree with bugster'Xenia, children don't always benefit from both parents working, it isn't win-win. Most children (at least young ones) would rather be home with a parent, or at least doing sometging they chose to do, rather than in a childcare situation about which they have no choice. when I was young I always wanted my mother to be at home, was delighted on the rare occasions when I was ill and she was able to take a day off work to be at home with me. You are deluding yourself if you think 2 full time working parents is so fabulous for children.'

I don't think it is better for parents to spend less time with children. I think the more time, the better for most kids. Whether that is mum/dad. Good childcare is fine too but it's not really better if a parent is willing and able to be there instead.

chandellina · 22/09/2011 17:48

Not all SAHMs are brilliant. My mother spent my first 10 years at home but I barely remember seeing her after school. She was never hands on. She went on to work and became wildly successful as a company boss. That's how I think of her now, not as the clearly miserable mum at home.

chill1243 · 22/09/2011 17:52

Perhaps both parents working was a trend which went with paying off big mortgages, There are plusses and minusses of all major change. But it seems a law of nature that societies do not stagnate. (Sorry about the lecture)