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.

Do people really refer to cleaners and gardeners as servants?

I'm not sure they would like that. But maybe their feelings don't matter?

Perhaps they don't care? Certainly ours is paid far more than NMW and her T&Cs are far better than lots of other jobs.

bobo I'm surprised at you finding domestic help abhorrent. I'd always assumed you have what you need. And IIRC when you worked (back in the day) you did almost nothing for yourself. I recall a post where you said your cleaner even cleaned away your breakfast dishes since you could possibly find the time .

I don't find domestic help abhorrent. Where did I say that?

An employee is fully involved in, and enthusiastic about their work, and will act in a way that furthers their employers interests. A servant of the other hand is someone that serves others: one that performs duties about the person or home of a master or personal employer.

Anyone working in my household are not servants because I expect them to act in a way that furthers my family. It isn't just about doing a job.

Had I got daughters SheGotAll I wouldn't discuss it with them . I can't see a point in discussing choosing a family friendly workplace if you might never have children. If it came up in conversation then I would point out that children need time. My eldest saw exactly how hard babies and small children are because he was much older and had first hand experience. He was about 12/13 when he announced that he wouldn't have any! 20 yrs in he doesn't have any. He and his girlfriend show no signs - they may well. They may well change their minds, but as she has a sister 12 years younger neither are under any illusions. They don't need it pointing out- they know it would be a big life change.

Your post of 14.44 Bobo.

Shame on you, SheGot, for your reading comprehension skills!

Be kind to me bobo.

I am jet lagged and was wide awake and at my desk at 4.15am .

I tell you, I could npt have a job with much travel. It bloody kills me crossing time zones. I can't get back to normal!

Yes yes yes SATS level 3 or thereabouts when you are tired ;)

I'm also a terrible traveller... Kills me ;)

mehitabel I think even if young people are fully aware that children are a lot of work and will impact on your career, particularly if you are a girl, there needs to be an acceptance in wider society that it is oknfor women to not have children for this reason. Many women have children because they feel it is expected of them, or that there is something wrong with saying you're not sure children are for you and that you find your career and child free life fulfilling. I have only mentioned women because the same pressure doesn't seem to apply to men. Nobody talks about men's 'biological clock' even though medically their sperm is of much better quality when they are younger. I agree with the headmistress in this case. Girls need to be told their career may well be compromised by having children, and that it's OK to choose.

Sorry I didn't rtft and have realised I'm agreeing with mehitabel! Although I do think that the only way in the longer term for this to change is for women to point out that one of the reasons they are not having children is because of the complete lack of equality in parenting. Then when the birthrate collapses, as it has done in Japan, men and employers just might have to step up to the plate [flying pig emoticon]

Bimbly Thanks for responding to my post. I'm very interested (and sad) to hear about your experience. I just wish parents were more interested in how their children really felt about their choices.

TBH the vast majority of people have very little meaningful choice in their lives.

They work because they have to. They get little say in how their working lives are set up. They use the child care they can afford or access. They get by as best they can.

Breast beating about the choices of the lucky few feels all rather first world.

Hear hear shegotalldamoves

That is painful true, Sheall.

*painfully even!

Well exactly, SheGot - it's the minuscule minority I was talking about earlier! As for servants, so far as I'm concerned, if someone lives in your house and does domestic work for you, they are your servant. If they live in their own home, then probably not. Plenty of servants in the past were treated with respect by their employers, and servants were not stripped of all rights - they were not slaves, just a particular type of employee. Plenty of employees have shit bosses, just as much as many servants did - why do you think trade unions ever came into existence? Servant may not be a fashionable term now, but I say it as I see it - in our increasingly polarised society, where the rich have gained astronomical amounts of wealth and the poor and middle class are falling ever further behind them in terms of prosperity, rights and power, we are going back to the days of masters and servants, where recourse to law to assert your increasingly limited rights is becoming prohibitively expensive for increasingly large numbers of people, and the wealthiest and most powerful can increasingly behave badly with impunity, or should they so choose, behave well.

I think it is dreadful that people feel able to ask personal questions about whether women are going to have children. It is a very valid choice not to want them- perfectly natural.

I think 'servant' is a very outdated term.

Sorry, I should say, if an employee lives in your house and their employment is domestic work, then they are, effectively, your servant...

"Servant" used to be outdated. It now seems increasingly relevant again to me.

I've just come back from a trip in Asia and oh my word, people treat their staff there with disdain.

And we were asked many times by UMC people why we hadn't brought 'help' along with us ( ie someone to deal with the children, carry bags, generally be our dogs bodies).

I've never seen nannies treated like that on the UK. They wouldn't stay would they?

There are all sorts of employers and all sorts of nannies!

Shegot I didn't want to give Asia as an example but they have servants not staff. There is a slight difference but a very very important one.

As for women having true choices, I totally agree with you which is why I think women should be supported to do what is best for them and their family. If they don't want to work while their children are young the system should support that but there comes a time (IMO, once the DC are all in school), where the support should be scaled back.

Overall, I am not looking to be the CEO or CFO of a multinational company with billions in revenue. I do want to rise to the upper levels of management though and that too requires hard work. There are very few women right now in those positions in the UK compared to where I work (NY Metro area) and one of the big issues is affordable childcare for women who return to work. I might live 3 blocks back from the hudson River, overlooking Manhattan but I pay $975 a month for DS's childcare from 7:30-5:30pm and that includes all food and snacks. With lower costs of childcare nearly all parents work no matter if they have 1, 2 or 3+ DC. Out in the burbs the commute kills it and one parents really scales back normally. Finding a babysitter/nanny is also harder. We have a local college so lots of babysitting help is readily available.

Yes, SheGot but you continually fail to explain how your childcare can cost what it does without the wages of the employees providing it being low.