to think there is a massive disconnect between being a parent and working and this needs to be taught emphatically at school

[theremustbeanotherway]

So that my people like me, as so many of you are, don't spend decades getting those top GCSEs, A-levels, the Oxbridge degree, the high-flying legal career, only to feel like I need to massively downgrade/quit work in order to have anything approaching a balanced life with my growing family? Tis truly miserable. I know part-time is a possibility but certainly not at my firm and they are like gold dust elsewhere. DH very supportive and does more than his fair share but it's not working at present and I can only see it getting worse in future.

Are there parts of the world where society is set-up so as to allow both parents to work without the family suffering? Is it because our society lacks the support of a strong extended family and community network or because our jobs are more demanding and don't acknowledge the competing demands of a young family?

Well, I think I'm lucky. I'm a solicitor, though in a seaside town not Central London. I have just gone back to work full time for the first time since my dc were born (7 and 4), having been part time after first child was born. I have no family nearby (250 miles away), and over a year ago I chucked their father out for all sorts of abusive rubbish.

At the moment, the dc have to have just under two hours of child care each working day, and I think it's working. They are very happy and well balanced, except when their utter arse of a father upsets them, his appearances are infrequent thankfully.

I have very little life outside of work eat sleep children-raising and repeat, I am skint as a skint thing and any help I get with the dc I have to pay for, but it won't be like that forever.

As for my career, I was actually headhunted for this job! Yes, even in Cornwall! I have never ever worked in London, for example, and would never want to. I've worked in Leeds, in a v high pressure job, though pre dc. It was ok, but nothing special.

I think the dc and I are doing a fantastic job. Hoovering's gone to shit though

Rectors: it might take a few months to find and execute an exit strategy...

I have heard this argument many times on MN before, that motherhood and working have gone hand in hand in the past, and that it is only a fairly recent concept that women shouldn't work and should stay home and take care of the children. Fair enough. However, I think the modern dilemma is that childhood and children are far more valued than they were, say, in the 1900s. Modern expectations for raising children are way more parent intensive.

The balance between work and not-work should apply whether you have children or not.

I agree with ACheesePuff that expectations of parental involvement and botheredness are much higher than they used to be.

A stereotypical 1950s housewife might have been in the house with the children nearby, but wouldn't have been bothered about whether they were getting quality time.

DH and I both consider ourselves successful in our chosen careers, but we have both chosen to adjust our working hours to enable us to spend more time with our DD - neither of us have suffered financially or career-wise fortunately, but if we had, we both agreed that being parents was equally important to us both, and we share the parenting as much as we can within the constraints of each of our workplaces.
The only way it can work though is with a decent support network in place and mutual respect - as parents and as successful business owners/managers.

You cannot have total commitment to your job and still be the kind of parent you would ideally want to be at the same time or unless you have fantastic family support, a partner who who is happy to put family first work second or are willing/ able to pay someone else to do the parenting for you.
So you either do career first then kids or kids first then career or make compromises, and try to do both just about well enough most of the time.

Yes, there are cultures like Sweden where everyone puts their kids into quality state-run daycare but also has loads of parental leave. Doubtless all mumsnetters would vote for swedish style taxes.

OP, don't despair - take a stand and lean in. Who can you speak to about teleworking, flexitime, etc? Fight for your career if that's what you want. I know, easier said than done.

We're raising next generation - it's important stuff long term for the economy that we do it well. (Firms are in denial about where their staff come from. They seem to believe all trainees spring out of the earth as 18yos.)

And just try not to be wasting time commuting. Commuting time is a total family-time killer.

Well maybe not taught emphatically but probably highlighted as a factor to be borne in mind when emphasizing to kids/teens (male and female) the importance of planning a career/family/life, along with as Kirstie Allsopp I think has suggested, the fact that while you can prevent getting pregnant you can't guarantee it or a safe pregnancy if/when you want one.

Until UK society/employers change significantly to make it easier, anyway! (Not meaning the recent claim that was it Microsoft might start freezing eggs for employees)! I think it's Scandinavia where part-time/more family-friendly hours are far more widely accepted though forget which country I was impressed by recently. Here I think it's a mix of things - with incomes rising as both partners work house prices doing the same until it requires 2 average salaries to pay a mortgage for an average home, etc. Decreased job security but increased mobility leading to the expectation that families will up sticks if the main breadwinner has to move for work, leaving support networks behind, etc. You're right sadly it does seem to be the way for senior appointments in any industry I fear that part-time isn't expected.

No coincidence I fear that the only 2 women on my employer's UK board have stay-at-home husbands (even the one without children). Years ago another senior manager had 2 weeks maternity only with her first.

Hope that if you have a decent/lawyer's income that gives you a bit more freedom in maybe paying for a nanny/au pair that might give you more flexibility to help manage your life? - but sympathies, anyway. Friend of mine (Oxbridge lawyer) agonised years ago whether corporate or criminal law as more money but potentially more hours in the former, I recall. Did go corporate but then had 3 kids in quick succession & managed to arrange part-time, but maybe in a way it was easier as it wasn't long after joining? (also was Cardiff, not London). Good luck!

missymayhemsmum twaddle.

I have total commitment to my job and total commitment to my family. I have no family support (we emigrated to NZ and have no family here at all) and DH also works, in a part time job from home, flexible/school hours only. He doesn't put family first and work second any more than I put work first and family second.

We both prioritise our family - to do that we both need to earn enough to support it. We also both need to be there at assemblies, sports days, prize givings, extra curricular activities - and we are.

that motherhood and working have gone hand in hand in the past, and that it is only a fairly recent concept that women shouldn't work and should stay home and take care of the children.

And what class of woman was that? Surely, the lower/working class who weren't exactly aiming for the high-powered careers that woman are aiming for today. They were the maids and the shopgirls, the nurses and the clerks. Not the MDs, consultants, lawyers etc that women expect to be able to be today.

This is a fairly recent phenomenon and I don't know how employers can always be as family friendly as women would often like. If you want to be a high-flyer, odds are your firm will, on the whole, want a reasonable number of hours out of you a week, at times that suit them, not times that fit in with school.

"Are there parts of the world where society is set-up so as to allow both parents to work without the family suffering?"

Yes, Scandinavia, with state subsidised cheap childcare and proper lengths of paid maternity and paternity leave before that kicks in. Generally I get the impression employers are more flexible too re school runs and parental leave for example. They have had social democratic governments for ~80 years so if we start now your kids might reap the rewards when they're old enough to be considering work/life Balance!

Yanbu, If someone had told me that my four years at uni, two years of unpaid internships, hundreds of rejected applications, a year of entry level skivvying, debt etc would result in me doing fuck all with my experience, I would have laughed in their face. And all because I couldn't afford chikdcare and get a bit of leeway from my employer after having a child! It sucks.

We hear a lot about Scandinavia in this context.

But there as here there are many lines of work which go in 24/7/365 and have to. And many of them are the less prestigious.

I would really, really like to know whether in practice whatever the law might say people without dependent children are expected and pressed to take a greater share of the difficult shifts than those with.

It happens here and it won't do.

I would be very very wary about schools teaching such a thing becasue I suspect it would come down to 'girls don't bother with a career because you will want to have babies, and really a pin money job that you can flex around your family is all you should aspire to'. Very much the message my mother tried on me and my sisters twenty odd years ago.

Now that's not to say that the OP's complaint isn't legitimate, high flying full on careers can leave little time for anything else, and that's hard if you also want to be a fairly hands on parent. Work life balance is something to consider, as is how you may want to flex your career around other things in your life (whatever they may be, male or female, parent or not) and of course people should be encouraged to research all aspects of careers they might be interested in, and to realise that high salaries may be very nice but they come with downsides too. That international travel sounds exciting but is mostly a tiring bore that eats into your personal time, and that some careers assume you have a non working partner always available.

My DS is 8 months old and I'm currently on Maternity. I have handed in my notice to my current employer because they wouldn't let me reduce my hours despite throughout my pregnancy leading me to believe that doing so wouldn't be a problem. I do work in a professional role and wanted to reduce my hours from 30 a week down to 22.5 as I didn't want DS in full time childcare four days a week.

When my employers said no I started looking for another job and will be starting my new job, in the same profession, when my maternity leave is over.

The other day my neighbour asked me if I was going back to work it whether I was "going to be one of those women who are kept by their husbands?" He said it in a tone that implied he didn't think much of the SAHP approach.

I would have been very saddened if having a child meant I would have to give up my work because I would have questioned why I had even bothered with my training and my degree if it was going to come to nothing anyway.

I do think it's very unfair that women have to give up their job that they may have worked really, really hard for because employers aren't 'family friendly' and don't understand that women shouldn't have to choose between either having a career or having a child.

I think the key issue is that in a nuclear family, you can balance one very high flying or inflexible career with a family, but not two, unless you are prepared to have your children brought up mainly by paid staff (fact, not judgement). Therefore, high flying women possibly need to marry someone who is prepared to take on a more supportive role, as many women currently do to high flying men. It would be helpful if employers were more flexible, but realistically this is only ever going to reach mid-level management. Most CEO/CFO/ MD/ partner jobs in magic circle will only ever be "this is your life" roles, and that's where the attrition rate is highest.

I do not think that it needs to be taught in schools. When I was chosing my medical specialty, I kept the lifestyle I wished to have in the future at the top of the decision list and chose accordingly. In all fields, choices are available - including the lifestyle choices to not have children, diy, or outsource. I do not believe that having a family is a right, but a personal choice, and as such, one needs to make life choices accordingly.

If a woman wants a career which is time demanding and a family, she should chose a partner with a more flexible career or extremely good outsourced care. Why does this need to be taught?

Frankly bizarre to think it can be taught. What would be the line? Surely anyone with the intelligence to pursue a high-flying career can figure out the options. I can see they might make choice they later regret, but that's life.

Trying to see how this would be pitched to teens: when considering the options of a high-flying career, don't forget to think of the impact on family life. They'd larf and go

And frankly teachers have quite enough to do.

That's too many franklys.

A stereotypical 1950s housewife might have been in the house with the children nearby, but wouldn't have been bothered about whether they were getting quality time.

Really? Don't be deluded.

I was a child in the 50s had loads of quality time with my SAHM.
She was always there when we got home from school at 3.30.
She was there everyday of the holidays, playing games and having fun with us.

no nannyogg the middle classes were shop girls and nurses. Working class if they were lucky were Maids (well unless the master took a fancy to you and you ended up pregnant and chucked out for your 'loose morals'.

If you go back to Victorian times women with children did all sorts just to make sure they could actually eat, they didn't generally have a nice steady job though it was bits here and there. Their men didn't always have steady jobs either, those who did there was a culture of spending the wages down the pub (which affected a significant number) so they had nothing left.

The only upside was that the poor didn't have any housework to do really, as they only had the clothes on their backs, a couple of jam jars for their cocoa and not enough money to light the fire for cooking. spreading butter into bread wasnt time consuming particularly. Whole families lived in a couple of rooms so they didn't even have a front step to polish even if they had something to polish it with. Obviously there were no bathrooms to clean.

If they were really unlucky their husband would get killed or badly injured at work and they'd end up in the workhouse entirely separated from their children. Or alternatively they would die giving birth to their 9th child at the age of 27 and their kids would end up in the workhouse anyway.

The good old days.

I see your point OP but I don't think this is something which could - or should - be taught in schools. I think it's the role models children see around them which make the strongest impact. It's not just about careers, it's about the type of partner you choose. It's possible to have 2 high flying careers, it's just likely to mean paying for a very high support level ( nanny.) Not all couples want that though- I know a fair few couples where one partner is more than happy to give up work or let their career take a back seat while the other partner has a high earning career. Other couples prefer to balance things more evenly between them. There's no blueprint any more (thank goodness!)