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?

My DH hates being away from our DS so much because of his work but financially, him going part time isn't feasible.

I suppose their are downsides for both parents. Women may have to sacrifice their career but a lot if men have to sacrifice seeing their children. I know I couldn't be away from DS as much as my DH is.

I feel your rage! I have chosen to stay ft but its bloody tough and it makes me SO MAD to see so many women feeling unfulfilled and frustrated on the mom track. This was meant to be my mum's generation not mine!

So agree with you OP! No DC yet but DH and I were chatting about this last night and I told him this is one of the things that honestly puts me off having kids. I've worked too long and hard to get the career I want to be expected to give it up.

We started to have au pairs when youngest was five. It works for us and we try damn hard to make sure it works for the au pair too. With two DC it was the cheapest option and also the one that gave them most stability with home life, play dates, clubs etc. And no panic about missing trains for us!

Also, I did say upthread that taking time out slightly later in my career, when DC were mid primary, was much easier career wise. Means I'd already pushed past a pinch point and so I had the double advantage of more flexibility at work and easier to return to a senior level afterwards.

I know I was lucky to be able to do that in some ways, but I would encourage other women to think about it as an option. Having time as a SAHM doesn't have to be when they're babies. Mine will actually remember it!

I think it is a bit disingenuous to say that the only thing standing between a women and her career is her personal choices.

The rules on shared maternity leave, length of maternity leave and paid maternity leave have changed a lot in the last 10 years, so many women in their thirties and forties will have had their children under the old rules.

I think it is perfectly fair to say that if anybody has a career break there will be consequences. However, child care responsibilities don't end when you return to work and it isn't fair to expect all people with families to function as though they have a SAHP, always able to take up the slack, yet many work places do. OK there are some jobs that genuinely don't fit well around children - You can't very well be an undercover spy and clock off in time for nursery pick up. However, much of working culture revolves around unnecessary presenteeism.

Equally, many schools, particularly state schools, assume that there is an army of parents available to step in at a moment's notice, to go to assemblies, attend school trips, help in class, create a themed costume by Friday, etc. etc.

Also, while we have countless studies arguing the toss about whether childcare and children with 'working mothers' damage their child's outcomes they never come to any meaningful conclusions, while on the other hand it is completely obvious that the biggest threat that most children face is poverty. Life happens and the best way to ensure that you are well-placed to look after your children financially if something happens to your partner is to stay in full-time employment.

Optimistically, I think things are changing, but I still think women are very much in the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't zone'.

It is indeed tough for women and men alike - women feel social pressures more, but it is hard for men too not to see their young babies/children.

I think flexible working is doable, especially in large companies, it is a mind shift. I certainly work for an employer that allows it and I have had 4 children and a career so far - with no family help at all - my eldest is 10 and my youngest 5.

I have worked part-time, term time, from home, travelled, not travelled, etc...it's all been fine. My employer is very target driven and it's been tough, but I did it - and although it is still tough I am still there, hanging on!! I am certainly not the only woman I know with 3 or 4 children with a full on career - in fact I know several.

Although my husband has a good career, I never felt I could justify giving up half of our household income (we earn the same). Maybe it is different when one partner earns considerably more and things just don't add up.

Merrymouse I agree with you with regards to poverty. Having been a poor child with a SAHM, I can vowed that no child of mine would have to go through poverty. Poverty does scar you deeply as a child in so many ways and I think back with dread to those dark days.

I'd tell the young women at your work place to choose their partners carefully, if they find a partner who's willing to do 50/50 on everything, juggling the kids/work/home life becomes so much easier. Who's to say that they have to be the ones to make all the sacrifices? If you go part-time at work then, yes of course you will have less opportunity than some full time people. NOT always though - I have a good employer and a lot of flexibility, they realise that the best people are made up of both genders so it's worth being flexible for all parents to keep them through those tougher years when the kids are little and need their parents around more.It's not easy, but then nor is struggling financially.

working mums?? don't you mean wohm's ???

I actually think parents that work part time often get all the shit from work and home

Someone told me once that pt gives you the best of both worlds.
It can be argued that it gives you the worst of both worlds.
(I am glad i work ft!!)

quellerosiel - like you I worked long and hard at my career, and reached a senior role within it - then lost this due to the recession anyway. I am glad that my job is not the most important thing in my life anymore, as if it was I would be very disappointed these days.

merrymouse I agree totally with your view that employers expect all people with families to function as though they have a SAHP, always able to take up the slack - All i was saying is that this is not gender specific-

you don't need a SAHP- (expensive) nanies/au pairs can perform the same role and decisions such as living near the workplace really help.

I don't think its just employers fault though - if employees were demanding the change it would create a motivation for employers

YellowTulips, I agree with you. A lady I work with complains that she has missed out on promotion because she has children. That is not the case, it's just that her peer has worked for four years, whilst she has had two years at home with her babies. So her peer has had two more years gaining skills and experience. And in my view deserves the job. Why should she have the pleasure of staying at home and get the promotion whilst her female colleague has left her young children/babies at home to concentrate on her career. It was her choice, so it's frustrating to hear her complain.

And I don't think all jobs can be done part time. A case worker in my team only works three days a week, and her handover has huge repercussions for others in the team on Thursdays and Fridays, as they already have full workloads. And she doesn't have to do certain time consuming and boring tasks that we all have to do each week, as otherwise she wouldn't have time for her case work. Going part time is not a 'victimless' choice. It causes trouble for the rest of my team. Is that fair?

Your team is not managing its time properly by the sound of it. Why does she not have a replacement for the other days? Why do others have to pick up her work?

It's not possible to keep everyone free so that they can take over her work. Can't afford another employee.

Agree OP. Everyone bangs on about 'well it's the choices you make' and 'it's about choice' but actually wheat you're flagging up is the paucity of choice in some instances - so if you want a career and want to work part time that's not a choice because those options don't exist!

Also it is true that senior roles are really a marathon and kudos goes to those who are able to be omnipresent and work evenings and weekends being constantly on call. This is often valued over competence and talent. The thing is it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I hear SAHMs saying their staying at home allows their husband to focus on his job meaning he can do the hours
Free of worrying about childcare which means he becomes the person that mgmt prefer so he gets ahead on he basis of his availability not necessarily his cleverness this setting the std for success. If everyone had to go home at 5 things might be different

Thus setting the standard, not this..

Surely it's not feasible to manage a department when you are not there half the week? That isn't sexism, it's just common sense.

"A chief engineer at a F1 team" is not, one suspects, the typical job held by the average parent, so I'm not sure how much I can take away from that example!

Ok that's at the extreme end of the scale but it applies to many design based industries where there are women working.

Incidentally I have friends that regularly do the school runs between work (morning and afternoon) and one has gone pt with his wife so they both cover the childcare.

They've had to put career progression on hold too so it'll be interesting to see how they get on once they decide to pick things up again.

I would HATE working for a part-time manager. It would drive me insane. Trying to make decisions based on what you think they might want you to do (while they are at soft play doing finger painting). Taking the brunt of everybody else's frustration because something has gone tits up with your biggest client and your manager is off grid for another 24 hours. That would be the reality.

Raskin you're a Dinosaur. Surely 2 years experience, 4 years whatever. It comes down to who is most competent for the role, end of story...

The manager in my last job was actually 2 semi retired women job sharing.

It worked very well.

Au pairs are a preserve of the rich though!

You need a spare room and a spare £100 pwk you can't claim childcare tax credits for.