Working mums get all the shit and end up with no career

[farewellfigure]

Hi. I really don't know if I've just a bee in my bonnet or whether workplaces in general really are unfair and women get such a raw deal. It's all very emotional at the moment as our department has just announced that 2 out of 10 of us will be made redundant in the next month. I'm applying for an admin/assistant role in my DS's school and I really hope I get it. I'm actually really excited but I can't help pondering over the fact I will become the cliché of a career woman who has to give it all up.

Anyway, at work, there are 3 designers who are part time, and 2 part time writers. We are all mums who had careers... we were managers, department heads etc. Then we had babies and came back part time and weren't allowed to be managers any more. And how about the men we used to manage whose wives had babies? They are now managers, department heads etc. It drives me NUTS. In DS's school, there are so many mums who had careers, and are now dinner ladies, TAs, admin assistants etc, it's just not funny. Not that there is anything wrong with any of those jobs whatsoever. But it just seems so unfair to me. I know having children is a choice, and I chose to do it. And I chose to go back part time. Yes... all my choices because I actually wanted to see my DS a bit every day and have a relationship with him. But basically I waved good bye to my career and now it looks like I'll have to wave good bye to the job as well.

There are 2 young women in the office who will probably get to keep their jobs when the redundancies come because they are young and full time and 'fresh'. WIBU to say to them, 'When your time comes, and you choose to have babies, come back full time. Put your DCs in nursery all day every day and keep your management roles. Otherwise you can kiss good bye to your high-flying careers and do what all the other overlooked mums end up doing'. Bitter? Me? Just a wee bit. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and maybe a bit of perspective! And I'm giving myself a . Is that allowed?

1. Swedish studies showed that where the father had the children for the first 6 months he had the same concerns when looking round nurseries as mothers who had been home - issues about the feelings of the child; If he had not spent much time with the child then he was instead interested in hours of opening, type of food and more practical issues. In other words men not inherently different. So get them doing a lot of care of new babies. Go out for a walk after a feed. Share the leave if you can etc.

1. If children have disabilities surely it is just as likely the father will be at home dealing with that as a mother except in sexist marriages? I have not had a disabled child (just the odd thing like dyslexia) so of course I cannot know how awful life would be with that but I do know working mothers who earn a lot who do balance it. Not easy of course and all our sympathy goes out to men as much as women who have children with disabilities.

1. Did not know about CS. How sad. It just shows that things like death, illness etc can hit any of us at any time and we all men and women, working and non working have very much the same fundamental issues.

1. I say to my daughter who talks about this stuff to me (she is in her 20s now and we are both lawyers) that your responsibility is to yourself. Companies don't sit there on the whole thinking about how kind to be to everyone (although some consideration of staff of course does keep good people). So my advice to my 5 children is

• pick work you love and also stay healthy and happy (priorities);

• secondly ideally pick something high paid (never does any harm to earn a lot - so my lawyer daughters and I do that; graduate son currently a postman happy with that job different choice - his choice which is fine - I am not God with the advice on the one right path);

• thirdly spread risk - I think it's really important. I could leave my last job because I was making as much from writing and speaking and editing as my whole salary )!) when I realised how much you could make self employed I was able to take the plunge and work fully for myself (check your employment contract though - i look at these every week and plenty of employers don't even let you coach football at weekends without their consent). The spread risk also included at one point marking A level papers and law papers (it paid for our summer holidays although is very very dull work) and in a couple having 2 or 3 jobs between you and we had 2 buy to let flats at one point too. So if you have a lot of sources of income then if one messes up or you get a nasty boss and have to leave work then you are not left high and dry and different income sources can give you variety and interest in life and I still do that today - I have my law practice, write books, edit, own a small publishing business, give talks etc etc.

• fourthly pick a job where ultimately you could work for yourself if you choose -this covers lots of careers including law but also medicine where you can do private work and things like advertising agencies - you can set up your own, architecture and the like. Indeed plenty of women in finance have left a bit company to own their own business.

I am sure there are lots more but I must get on with sending out bills to people arguably more important than any other task as without it we starve....

Yes Lotus number 1 priority of being self-employed is making sure someone is paying you to do it! I know countless women who mistake a hobby for a career choice!

I see where the OP is coming from - luckily my OH accepts the principle of equal childcare in theory and I am going to do my best to do full time hours (but compressed) but we will see how it works out in practice.

Ironically it wouldn't be possible without an amazing MIL who is a happy homemaker (occasionally works part time but not at the moment).

Times may be changing but not fast enough for me - I constantly feel like we are swimming against the tide and I have to give myself regular pep talks that equal childcare is a valid choice! The law on additional paternity leave helps but it seems like we are the only ones taking advantage!

Agree with shewept - lots of women jump at the chance to be a homemaker and although it shouldn't make any difference what other people are doing, it does feel weird when you're the only one still giving thought to your career whilst going through the process of pregnancy and parenthood..

The other hindrance is the gender pay gap - I would have no chance of convincing my partner to do part time or compressed hours or take additional paternity leave if we didn't earn a fairly similar salary. Doesn't sound like this is OP's problem though.

I was completely blindsided by how difficult I found being a working mum. I was also a single mum but I think many of the issues would have existed if the ex had stuck around. This was 10 years ago and I think the technology available today would have saved me a huge amount of stress & loss of credibility at work -which built & built and eventually eroded my confidence & previous hard won reputation.

If I could give my old self advice it would be to make the commute as simple as possible. Get the very best childcare you can afford. Negotiate all the technological support you can so you can be flexible & accessible. If you work part time make sure you're not bitched about & lied about on your days away from the office. If you are - report the fuckers to HR instead of crying in the loo.

I would also tell myself that this stage doesn't last forever - in a blink of an eye your DCs might be able to walk themselves to school & you'll be freer.

This thread does make me think hard about what I will advise my 6yo dd when she's older. Lotus, yes any ASN are also the responsibility of my DP too. But he works 70-80hours a week now setting up a new business. So it falls to me. Which is inherently unfair but I don't think I have made enough of a case with him for my career mattering. I'm certainly doing so now. His hours are flexible at least. I think self-employed or freelance can be a solution for those who want to work part time. But I would actually rather work as part of a team.

I was recently in a redundancy situation and eventually made redundant. Myself and the other girl made redundant worked part time out of a team of 7. The criteria for redundancy stunk to high heaven, the business wanted only 9am starts and there was no negotiation. No consideration of ability, experience or competence, just bums on seats at 9am. Turns out they landed themselves with a real shower of shite but I still can't help feeling cheated out of a job I had had for over 15 years full and then part time. Op, I don't think UABU.

There are some very bad practices about.
On part of team etc we shoudl have added to my list above personality issues. I adore being and working alone - door shut, no one here. My ideal week is not a single meeting (does not happen very often sadly) and I joke to the children that I cannot wait until I'm 85 when I can live entirely alone for the first time so not surprisingly I've rather blossomed working for myself in a way I probably didn't when working with others.

Other people want colleagues and company and sharing things. I think we are all different.

It is very hard for teenagers to choose careers. My youngest two (GCSE year) will have to be making some choices soon. In fact one of those says he never wants children which is a shame but again a perfectly valid choice. There have always been workers who don't want children. Of my grandfather's 9 siblings only he and his oldest brother had chidlren. 3 sisters had one - one even took herself off from the NE to London to work as a nursing sister in the 1920s which was quite a brave move; other two ran and owned a shop. 3 of his brothers failed in the UK (recession) and went off to the US and Canada, never married and did very badly (sleeping on streets, not enough food etc). I think one or two others died young. In the 1500s UK women who didn't want the burdens of children and family would often join convents to live with other women and not have to bother with family and children. So I don't think it's new that men and women sometimes actively choose not to have children. We've certainly always known it is hard work.

I think there's much to be said for discussing these issues with one's partner before embarking on children, or at the very least during pregnancy. I know people say 'you won't know how you feel until the baby arrives,' but it's not a bad idea to strike a balance between the discussions you have pre-children, and the emotions after the baby arrives.

From my own experience, when we had dc1, giving up work wasn't an option financially. Therefore no matter what emotions I might have had when dd arrived, we simply had to find childcare and I had to return to work, albeit only 3 days a week, when dd was 12 weeks old.

And here's the thing: if I had had a choice, who knows? - I suspect I may have given up work, because returning with a 12 week old bf baby was physically very demanding.

However, returning to work was the best thing I ever did. I proved to myself that I could do it; that dd was fine and I was keeping my hand in (albeit that the phase of 3 day working was more career maintenance than career building. )

I suspect if I'd stopped working, my confidence levels might have dropped and it would have become progressively harder to re enter the workplace. Not because of any inherent 'unfairness', but simply because in the workplace, particularly when it comes to the higher status more interesting roles, you're always going to be competing against men and women who havent had time out.

By the time dc2 and 3 arrived, financially I could have stopped working, but chose to continue (despite my salary only covering childcare for several years, so no immediate financial gain) because I knew first hand by then the advantages of keeping that foothold. The other thing that worked well for me was to step back up to f/t as soon as my youngest turned 4. This was the best way to get my career moving forward again; not because it's impossible In a p/t role, but because if you're willing to work f/t too, you're inevitably going to make yourself attractive to a wider market. I have many friends in similar roles to me who chose to stay working 3 or 4 days a week pretty much permanently, all through their children growing up. Nothing wrong with that, but inevitably there are downsides such as not having a great pension pot, and not always having the career options which they'd have if they were prepared to work f/t. It's a trade off isn't it? - if you are choosing to work p/t presumably you weigh up the pros and cons and do what you feel is best for your family

The absolutely must important factor I believe is to choose a partner who will work as a team. If I'd partnered someone who believed his career was superior to mine, and who expected me to always play second fiddle and mop up all the domestic side of things, then quite frankly I would be reaping what I'd sown.

Your experience shows lines that we're really fortunate these days to have the option to work p/t on returning back.

When my US cousin had her first DC 25 years ago she was expected to return back to a demanding f/t job in the city 4 weeks after giving birth, she chose to give up as it was just too much. I suppose she could have got in a nanny or her DH (also in a good job) could have given up work instead, but faced with the stark option she did what many women do and resigned.

Now after being out of the job market for so long she's stuck with a low paid retail job with little prospects, whereas my other cousins who had less high flying nursing jobs were able to reduce their hours when DC were young by doing occasional agency work and now have good careers.

If she had had the option of delaying her start until DC was 12 weeks or going back 3-4 days to begin with then there would have been a much better chance of keeping her in the work force.

I do agree with what lotuslight says about a backup plan. I don't think I'll be made redundant, both the company and I have a good deal from my working arrangement at the minute, but if I was then I'll just transition to contract working - something I had planned to do once DS is in secondary school - a bit earlier. It will mean that we'd all have a bit more to do and the additional childcare costs would outweigh most of the salary increase, which is why I'm not picking it as my preferred option for now, but it's reassuring to have something in the back pocket.

Agree with Lotus and Lines.
Look at all the options before you make your choices. Minimise your risks.
My DH is great and does his share but in my case there was no way that I was ever going to be financially dependent on another person. I saw what effect my DM being in that position had on my upbringing and was determinedly not going to have that for my DCs.
Working full time in a professional career brings me personal fulfilment and is what makes me a better parent to my kids, and so in that sense it is not just about the financial security that comes with a successful career.
I spent 6 years working part-time whilst mine were small. I was treading water career wise but I am good at what I do and had got to a senior enough level to call the shots on what working pattern I wanted to suit me. I moved back to full time when the youngest was 2 and have progressed steadily up the ladder since.
None of it has been easy, but since when has life been easy for any generation?
Seems to me it is all about looking at the choices, making the most of opportunities that come up, planning ahead, having various plan Bs and Cs, and being in control of your own destiny.

I agree rookie. However much people complain, it's a stark fact that there has never been a better time in the UK to have a baby from the perspective of equal opportunities. Life isn't perfect, but the rights that new parents have now are hugely better than just 20 or so years ago.

I was actually one of the first job sharers for my employer, and i know some of my colleagues were sceptical at first about how it would work. It's difficult being at the forefront of anything new.
Likewise with childcare... There were far fewer nurseries and very scant wraparound childcare when mine were small, so it was a case of getting out there and finding workable solutions. Not easy but so worth it in the long run

I decided to be self-employed as no full time job really gives you the flexibility and especially in the sector I was in. I could have asked for part-time in my previous job but saw what happened to a former colleague who did that - they just tried to cram the fulltime tasks into part-time hours! Needless to say she left!

Now I do earn less at this stage as it's early days but I have a whole lot less stress. No office politics and yes I do get the odd difficult client but on the whole they are far less stressy than my former colleagues and the environment!

My own view is that unless you are a) wealthy enough and b) willing to to outsource the bringing up of children and the running of a house, it is virtually impossible to have two high flying careers in one marriage/ partnership. Something has to give. Up to individual families to decide what.

Disagree slightly amothersplace. Among our close friends, we know some couples who genuinely both have highflying careers. They outsource pretty much everything to do with domestic stuff, cleaning, gardening, ironing etc, but certainly haven't outsourced bringing their children up!!

It works for couples who are truly both committed to raising a family while both being determined to fly high in the workplace

We do however, know more couples like us, where they both work full time In professional roles, but have made a conscious decision that neither partner will try to go stellar with their career. We always looked at it as both of us having similar intelligence and qualifications, and
Both equally capable of child caring and housework, so it made sense for us each to have a balance.

To be honest, I never had a waver in my career after giving birth. I guess that's just my area of work. Also, they probably prefer there managers full time as it is a lot more convenient.

It's a tough one. I work in a school and have chosen to work 4 days a week, although all the other mums have gone down to 3 days a week.
It's tough, and the one day off isn't really one day off as I use it to get up to speed with my marking and planning- it gives me a bit of breathing space when I leave early and still have stuff to do.

Have to say, the idea of having one day off in the week was to be able to spend time with the two babies, but I tend to use it to get all the domestic cleaning done. And still the house is like a hovel....

My OH would love to work part time, but he has a senior post and it's not doable to work part time with his responsibilities. I have taken on a responsibility this year, but it's a minor one and I am in the process of taking on something more from September- but they have asked whether I am returning full time....

I think 4 days p/w is the absolute poisoned chalice. I can say this as I used to do it myself.

Your workload isn't reduced, but unless you can maintain that f/t workload in 80% of the hours and 80% salary,you're still on the p/t career maintenance path. Most women are good, but not quite good enough to ram a f/t plus job into those hours, so end up with the double whammy of working on their non paid day, plus taking on extra to show willing.

Funnily enough my workplace is quite keen on people doing a 4 day week, I think they've done the maths as well.

I found 4 days better than 3, so I guess it depends!

I'm on 4 days and was told "you seem like the kind of person who can do 5 days work in 4", but I do just work my hours, so it is fine.

Haven't read the thread in its entirety but it strikes me the elephant in the room in all this discussion about how hard you work being a "choice" is single parenthood. I'm about to become a single parent (in part because of my STBXH's reluctance to share childcare, although I've always been the breadwinner anyway.)

If I were to make the "choice" to go part-time to spend more time with my DD (which I'd love), I would not only be guaranteeing that I'd be side-lined at work. I would not be able to pay my mortgage, let alone mortgage and childcare and all the other household bills. I would immediately have to sell my house and move away from where I live.

Yes it is possible to downsize, move to the country and all the rest of it and yes, potentially there would be positive quality of life trade-offs. But its a pretty drastic thing to do, it would uproot my child, take her away from her support networks just when she is adjusting to my separation from her dad, would lead to a significant reduction in lifetime earnings, potentially damaging my DDs educational prospects etc.

I know money isn't everything, but financial security is pretty important when you are on your own. I am now largely responsible for my child's financial stability and that, in practice and in my career, means I have to work full time.

I totally understand why people who have the option to do so would choose to work fewer hours for less money in order to spend more time with their DCs. I'd do the same in a heartbeat.

But for some of us that choice is not a choice at all and I wish people would bear that in mind.

Newnames: I agree, it must be really tough. But - why isn't your dc's father contributing financially to childcare etc? The two of you may have split, but he can't divorce himself from fatherhood.

The other part of the equation is that when two people have set up home together based on two incomes, and the economies of scale which come with living together, there is inevitably going to be some degree of financial hit if they subsequently go their separate ways because running two homes is likely to cost more than running one, even with downsizing taken into account. There's no way round that really.
But ultimately if you need to work f/t then rest assured you are providing what your child needs. It no doubt has its stresses but you are securing your child's future

New name, do check if there is anything you would be entitled to, eg tax credits.

Lines the short answer is that he will be contributing but he's never going to earn anywhere near as much as me. I've always been the one to whom the bulk of the financial responsibility falls and needless to say this was a factor in our separation. But now there isn't even the theoretical possibility of my deciding to scale back work to spend more time with her.

I don't feel bad about it for a second, I don't have a choice and I'm also lucky enough to have an interesting and fairly well-paid job so its not a hateful chore. I just find it rather irritating sometimes when the default assumption is that if a mother is working full time it must be because she's a highly ambitious woman who values career success over quality time with DCs. In many cases its the only option.

Brandy I'm not entitled to tax credits.

New names is your x not contributing to childcare in terms of time. Just wondering if you are able to negotiate firm commitments on shared custody which might help your work / life balance. I actually know a few single parents who get a better arrangement on sharing child care responsibilities post split.
Also the whole thread is more about whether there is any point in working at all if you only work PT. The majority so far seem to think if you can manage the early years logistics continuing FT offers the best long term result.

Yes it is shit.

Men are lucky. A lot of the men are pretty average at what they do, but the experienced, senior women who could be competing with them have let go of their careers and will never return.