To think if I had paid £6k a year to have my daughters educated by this woman

[catgirl1976]

I'd want my money back

www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/head-teacher-tells-girls-you-cant-have-a-career-and-be-a-mum#.xfVk8JvGg

Glad she's stepping down.

I get telling girls there is a glass ceiling, but she's pretty much telling them to roll over and accept that.

I get telling girls that it's a valid choice to choose not to have children, but her message over all is appalling.

Oh, I agree. I never said it was just a 'mum thing'.

I utterly dispute the assumption that no couple with high flying careers can't make it work. Dh and I are both very senior (to put in context we are both in the top 0.1% of UK earners). Touch wood but we have a happy marriage and happy children.

So far this week, I worked from home on Monday, 10 till 6pm Tuesday to Thursday and at home on Friday. Dh is overseas this week so all school drop offs are mine and pick ups on days I work from home. We have a ton of help at home - full time housekeeper/nanny, part time cleaner, a weekly gardener and a home PA (we each have a work PA too). Collectively their jobs are to help run the household so that time with the dcs is both maximised and is quality time. Yes I travel, so am away 3 days next week but then am at home.

Dh's job doesn't afford flexibility and he works longish hours so a lot of the household and children stuff falls on me. Yes it's stressful at times but doable most of the time. I was always ambitious and driven and saw the challenges as puzzles to solve rather than roadblocks.

I am multi tasking and on a conference call so I better return to that

I know what mehit is saying and I do agree. Taking gender out of it, if a child's parents both work then for one to be a high flyer, the other either takes the bulk of the childcare or the child goes into ft childcare - whichever way you slice it, at least one parent, and sometimes both, will sacrifice a lot of time with their child. They might not mind that, it might work for them, they might be happy. But for very many people who are not fortunate enough to be able to work from home or work flexibly etc the reality is that it can be extremely stressful, tiring and frustrating battling to try to keep a balance between personal desires and aspirations and those of the other family members. In the majority of cases parents find that they cannot both have it all, due mainly to patriarchal workplace expectations, and so one of them is forced to put their career on hold (even if they are able to hold down their job). In most cases it is the woman, again due to cultural workplace expectations. My boss made a clear choice - she wanted it all. But playing hide and seek with your child only to hide in a cupboard checking a blackberry doesn't seem like a particularly effective way either to parent or to manage: neither the job nor the child is getting the attention it deserves.

"I utterly dispute the assumption that no couple with high flying careers can't make it work."

Freudian slip? :)

Blingly no one's saying people can't have 2 superduper careers and children. I think Mehit is right to suggest there are choices involved. You may say you see enough of the children for you, and that's great, but surely it's indisputable that you see less of them than if you didn't work FT and need a nanny. Choices.

And what if you'd just happened to choose a career that can only be done at your level in the central London office, FT?

Stopping I've followed your posts with interest. I went to my high-falutin' boarding school age 11. At gatherings my relatives and parents' friends would often ask me if I liked boarding. I used to say no, I hated it, but every time if my mum overheard, she'd say "don't be silly darling. She loves it really". And then I learned to smile sweetly and say "It's fine" instead. So easy for us adults to tell ourselves the kids are "fine" and they love all the extra playtime at afterschool club/with nanny, but for an introverted child it can be anything but, even if it's "fine because she's known no different".

Bobo yup!

Bimbly, I think my point is more that you can't say that it doesn't work for anyone at all. Because there are always people out there (however small) for whom it does work. I would also say that travel aside, I see my kids more than the average working parent sees their child. It isn't just that I see them enough for me, maybe I am reading too much into the bold, but my dcs teachers spend 30 hours a week with them which is a lot more than my nanny sees of them!

I always say on these threads that the assumption is that the compromises involve the marriage or time with the kids. Yet in my experience and that of my female peers, the compromise is usually "me" time or time with friends. I do think that, the compromise with men is typically time with their kids.

Apologies if this has been mentioned already, I haven't RTFT.

"If you're lucky enough to find yourself in a job that you love, it could be very emotionally fulfilling. I am not saying it is as emotionally fulfilling as having children but sometimes that means that the decision ends up being right"

Eh?

Does this mean that the expectation is that girls will choose a career because it is emotionally fulfilling (rather than financially rewarding or intellectually stimulating) and would we expect boys to do the same?

Best advice I got from school was "be really careful who you have children with" - and seeing struggles of friends who became single parents with absent or obstructive fathers of the children has confirmed that - though on the other hand if you have children age 20-22, then by your mid-thirties they are old enough for you to go work longer hours and acquire a career.

I've lucked out in many ways - found a chap who is very happy to work 4 days a week and two days at home, thus available for some childcare, but it's affected his career even more than me moving to 3 days - he has had many headhunters trying to poach him, but the firms always insist they want someone working 5 long days a week for around PS130-150k, but working 3 days even for say PS50k would be unacceptable. Does anyone have any idea why most senior managers are so opposed to part-time workers? The dept where DP works has 50 staff, 48 of whom have small children - the pay isn't great for their skills, but the competition won't allow flexibility.

A friend has recently gone back to working full time while her DP does childcare and some self-employed work. She's not sure it's going to work out in the long term, but said no matter what, it is already having the huge benefit of making it clear exactly what is involved in household management and childcare, planning meals, organising child school trips, budgeting holidays etc - so even if she goes back to doing most of that, he will be appreciating it much more! This is why I'm so glad DP worked from home a lot when the kids were babies - he could see I was permanently busy even when the house was a tip!

Fair enough Blingy, I certainly would expect them to see their nanny less than their schoolteacher or you'd only be seeing them something like 09.00-9pm, and many children are asleep by 9! The bold was meant in reference to other parents: I get home 6.30ish one day a week and in my view I basically don't see them that day, so for me to work til 6 most days and also travel would be a huge compromise.

Interesting point about your choice of what gives. My DH definitely doesn't fall into that category but I know quite a few who do.

Blimey, if you need the number of servants/employees/paid helpers you do to make things work, Blingygolightly, then it really is a minuscule minority of people for whom it could work! Presumably at least one of them lives in your home with you? Are they single? Have they been with you for a while, or have you had several nannies/housekeepers? What happens when they are ill?

IME the scale of domestic management and outsourcing required for two really full on careers is not to everyone's taste. It's not so much an issue of lifestyles such as the one Blingy describes being impossible - rather that, for many people, they are abhorrent.

Dual incomes are a necessity for many families. I'm not convinced that Blingy sees her children less than a typical family where there is less flexibility and less money to pay for help.

Certainly at the bottom of the income scale people don't have much choice about which shifts to work.

To answer you earlier question Lion, yes, currently more women than men make career compromises, while many men don't feel that they have any choice, but that is changing. I am certainly not going to teach my children to limit their aspirations based on current prejudices.

I agree that there are two sides Bimbly and the parent's take is often different from the child - as in Margaret and Carol Thatcher.
You are very lucky if you remain close to the parent that is not around for the day to day things. Lifts to Scouts etc are a time that you often have in depth chats- something about being in the car and not face to face seems to initiate it- and the parent is physically there and not doing anything except driving.
I think that you are right about teens. The only thing that I regret is both my DH and I being work driven when the youngest was about 14 yrs. I think something happened that we will never know about now. He was letting himself in to an empty house and neither of us were available to pick up on it- our minds were elsewhere.
I know that I have several friends who had high flying careers and they are upset because their DDs have chosen to be at home with children. Something that tells me that the child didn't think it worked as well as the parent thought.

It is all down to choices. There isn't a right or wrong choice- but there are choices.

I was in trouble because, apparently, my son hasn't chosen a family friendly career. It seems very sensible at 20 yrs to have a non family friendly one and concentrate on working your way up and then when you do have children you will be high enough to be more flexible.

Oh yes, Mehitabel - I also know plenty of cases where adult DDs have wanted to be at home, very much in the face of maternal disapproval. However, some of the successful professional grandmothers had their own mothers as domestic and childcare backup - a service they are themselves not able or willing to provide for their own DDs.

The great thing is that men are realising that they have choices too and they don't have to miss out on the daily childcare. Many of my son's friends ( late 20s / early 30s) are able to have a career that allows them to get the child up and take them to school or meet them and do tea and bedtime. Or work from home one day a week etc etc. Or choose to let the wife be the career driven one. They certainly have never had it all- they have been expected to work long hours and miss out huge chunks of childhood, it hasn't been seen as important that they might actually want to be responsible for looking after their own children.
Change is always slow.
Making sure everyone knows that there are choices to be made is a start.

I think the scope of situations on which people are basing their opinion on the thread is quite narrow. There always seems to be a notion on MN that high flying equals the law or pure city jobs such as trading or hedge fund a management. Maybe because MN is quite London centric? There is also the notion that high flying means literally flying to other countries frequently. This really describes a very narrow scope of works. most of us can manage to juggle. You may think any child would suffer being in nursery 8-6 and that is an opinion- it has nothing really to do with a high flying career. A receptionist could have their child in nursery that long and I don't expect we'd consider that high flying.

As for the 25year old needing to be on the phone to America- what does that show? We can all do those jobs in our 20s and move to more family friendly roles in advance of having children- that's actually what most people do. That's why your son has that job basically, his age

I am not providing domestic or childcare back up for possible future grandchildren. I live too far away for a start. I also have choices.

I have one nanny for 25 hours a week with DS in daycare 7:30-3:30 but we pay until 5:30pm. DD is in morning care from 7:30 and we pay for one hour of aftercare which takes her to 3:30pm.

When DH is away for the week I bring in a laundry service to do the kids clothes (they pick up and drop off at the house), a local restaurant makes the evening food so it is delivered hot, I have a dog walker to take the dog out in the AM plus the cleaner comes in twice during the week. I don't think this is excessive at all. I am working FT hours and doing it on my own when DH is away. It is too much for me to do everything on my own and I am not going to break my back trying to be a hero while DH is off on a work trip.

Also, I find it offensive that the term servants is used. We, as a society, have moved on from the era of having servants. We have help in the home but those employed in these roles are employees and not servants. Servants were treated with minimal amounts of respect and had next to no rights. Anyone working for my family is treated with respect by all family members and they have rights.

Exactly Alice- that was why I was upset to be told that he shouldn't have taken the job!

High flying to me means the movers and shakers- those at the top of their tree. I think this is where we disagree. I am not talking about your average GP, lawyer etc who just juggle - as we all do.

I am taking about those where it is constantly said 'why are more women not.............?

I'm not sure that avoiding the word "servant" is helpful if that's the job someone does!

Those number of high flyers (by that definition) are absolutely tiny though- too tiny to consider in this scenario I think. Only a tiny number of those school girls will do those roles (as would a tiny number of boy at a similar school)

So we're back to regular people
In good jobs being able to manage work and childcare? Not needing to be told they have to chose? I'm a bit confused.

Excellent post Mehit. You've had a tough ride about your son's career but it makes total sense to me, and it's what I ended up doing myself. But it was sheer dumb luck that I could downshift into a job with PT possibilities. Salary comes into it too. Climb the greasy pole for a few years and there's more chance that you'll be able to earn "enough" on 3 days a week.

I do feel guilty sometimes for having taken the "mummy track" at work - that I've wasted my expensive education. But I think you're right, something has to give and our compromises are good ones for our family. I'd prefer it without the guilt trip though.

And what NotCitrus said about being careful who you have children with. With bloody great bells on. It's so easy for a husband's meetings to be far more important than bedtimes or hospital appts, or his sleep to be more important than yours.

Servant
: a person who is hired to do household or personal duties such as cleaning and cooking

: a person who is devoted to or guided by something

Source: Merriam Webster (I chose a US source for you, Want2be:) )

Agree Alice, you might as well give similar warnings to boys about high flying careers. I certainly don't think you have to choose between having children and being a headmistress. (Although nothing wrong with choosing to remain childless).

mehit absolutely no one suggested your DS should not have taken the job.

Simply that it seems ridiculous to pontificate about what advice girls should hear and to state categorically that two demanding jobs cannot be done (when you clearly have no personal experience one way or the other), whilst admitting that you had no such discussions with your sons.