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.

Part of this is self-inflicted, for certain. As long as it's 'normal' for well-educated women to stay at home with their children long after they are school-aged, this will persist.

I don't know about that turn of phrase. I can see many reasons to stay at home in a very stable relationship long after children start school. Perhaps it makes for a much less stressful life. While the status quo is where it is, long working weeks, plenty of expectation of presentism, long commutes, poor childcare options, men with more earning potential, a biological imperative for women to bear children I don't really see why many families who are in that position would be inclined away from not having a parent and particularly a mother at home.

Real life makes two working parents very difficult. I could not imagine myself not working ever but when it became obvious that my youngest had what is probably ASD I nearly had a wobble about how to work and deal with the fallout that would bring. There are compromises everywhere it is hard for parents when it is your children you feel are compromising. I think society owes it to parents to invest in their children who will obviously represent the future, capitalism obviously feels no one owes anybody else anything.

Anyway I still think a principal should be more inclined to open doors for girls rather than shut them and maybe teach them about fighting for a more family friendly society.

Jeanne I will ask her when I see her No seriously, she doesn't have kids and I am probably biased because I know her, but I think she is saying let's stop pretending it is easy for women to have it all. Let's make "no kids" an acceptable and viable option for women (which is the choice she made), because "both kids and massive career" is very close to impossible for a lot of / most women. And we should be realistic. I don't know though. I really liked the Guardian piece, e.g. she has a point but she's still wrong!

Does anyone have a link to the original article / interview?

BYOSnowman - No, I don't think people think men have it all - certainly, many of those with high-flying careers do so at the expense of their relationship with their children. It's just that society isn't that bothered by men not having relationships with their children in the same way women are penalised for it.

I don't know

I'd love to think you can be a great mum who is around a lot for her kids AND have a smashing career

It did not work out for me, all my contemporaries had to choose. I know maybe 2 people who nailed it, one because her parents live next door and do all child care and dog walking.

Having a degree in law, the only two who made it to partner in a big law firm are a lesbian (no kids) and another child free woman.

All of us who became mums, had to make some tough choices, and most chose to opt for a low flying career, flexible hours, and somehow juggle motherhood and work. All the men pursue their careers to the degree that suits them.

On MN all women seem to have partners who do exactly half of all the domestic and childcare chores.

maybe we all got it wrong, the wrong partners, the wrong mindset.

But I cannot see how 2 adults with children can completely have it all.

Everyone I know makes big fat compromises.

I am not going to wail I was lied to as a girl, but I really did not know what the consequences were of having kids (and how often they are sick!) on a career.

I have this at the moment. My boss telling me I can go far but only if I don't have another child!!!!

I have a daughter in 6th form. At a 6th form similar to the one the lady in the article runs. I think she is being realistic. Realism gives people, men and women, the tools to make considered opinions. I want the world to be my daughter's oyster; I also want her to make choices that will make her happy and give her as much flexibility as possible in her future.

If she wants to stay at home and be a mother I'll support her. If she wants a career and no children I'll support her. If she wants to float as free as a bird through life doing what she fancies on a whim, I'll support her. If she wants children and a career I'll support her whether that's with a SAHF, a nanny and lots of help or on a three day a week shared basis, I'll support her. I want her to make informed and sensible choices, if she doesn't I'll still support her.

All the truly successful women I know have had drive and ambition to achieve whatever it is they want. All the ones who have done it most easily have had choices and a mother who supports them. Supporting ones children requires energy.

I agree with others who says he is being realistic. I requalified shortly before having children - and as a result I haven't had any chance to work in the field I requalified in. I had no idea just how impossible it would be to change into a demanding career with young children.

One of my best friends succeeded to partner level in law firm. To succeed she had to return to work a few weeks after having her baby. But she has now left, because juggling a child that has medical needs with a specialised legal career has proved to be too difficult. She has said she wished she had aimed for an area of law that wasn't as specialised, as she can only do that work for only a handful of London law firms and couldn't take the option of stepping back slightly and working for a firm out of London etc - but that information just wasn't given to her at school.

Thanks hearts.

I didn't mean to imply you were biased - I'm just curious because I did wonder originally (and said in my first post) whether she'd been misquoted. It does have a slight 'cut and paste and hope it passes' feel to it.

Parents have kids, not just women. Parents can work, and if having kids means less work time, both parents could take a hot to their careers, or one could or the other could, by agreement.

The sooner we stop thinking about this as a women's issue the better.

Parents have kids, not just women.

YY. And society needs to reproduce, not just parents - so this is all of our issue.

There should be a lot more part-time jobs. Until that happens then either you get a full time nanny (and possibly cleaner etc.) or something has to give. There are sacrifices to be made when having children, but these don't have to be automatically the Mother's to make.

I saw that and she actually was my deputy head when I was at school!

I think she is right.yes it would be nice if men also felt the same pressures as women but they don't. I am the breadwinner and have a very successful career. I work long hours. Dh is the stay at home parent and he is great, but there is still a big element of child rearing that naturally falls on mum. And you never have it all. You feel you are always compromising either your work or your time with the kids. Men with high powered careers (generally) just don't feel the same pressures because it's a cultural thing. You can have it all. It's one or the other or a compromise to both.

Pointless fighting nature. For some women, children will come first. Others might choose not to have them. Fine all round.

The sooner we stop thinking that men will ever take real responsibility for children, the sooner we'll stop breaking our hearts.

Do we really think that men have it all? :-/ I know plenty of men who have sacrificed their relationships with their children for the sake of their career (my own father included).

I think it's pretty damn hard to have it all. There is no doubt that sexism in the workplace exists, and that there is a glass ceiling - but it is also true that women often make different choices than men would make in the same position.

I'm the same age as my boss, my kids are a similar age. I refuse to travel anything like as much as he does, partly because my children come first, and partly because I just don't really want to spend my whole life working.

Actual quote was:

“I’ve never run it as a girls’ school,” she says. “I’m sorry, I’m not a feminist. I believe there is a glass ceiling – if we tell them there isn’t one, we are telling them a lie.
Women still have to plan for a biological fact – ie motherhood.”

I think I have to agree with timely

The sooner we stop thinking that men will ever take real responsibility for children, the sooner we'll stop breaking our hearts

I think that is a bit of a blanket statement.

I don't think men have it all. Just that they feel more at ease with the compromise they make on family life.

I actually find it really disturbing that an educated woman, who is responsible for educating young women isn't a feminist.

She doesn't think men and women should be equal????

That's not the only definition of a feminist

It's a zombie thread but the discussion on this was pretty interesting:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/parenting/2080867-Has-parenting-ruined-your-career-ambitions-Does-it-matter

There was another thread about/for women and mothers with big careers which was also great but it must have been in Chat because I can't find it.

I lean towards agreeing with timely too.

And my DH is a SAHD right now. And he is one of the "good ones".

totalrecall I would agree with you there.

It remains a fact that for many women, having children stalls their career because they choose to put their children first.

Over the years (I've spent 25 years working for a company which has relatively enlightened employment practices), I've had a number of talented female colleagues all but one of whom has decided by their early forties that they have priorities other than getting to the top. It's not always having children that precipitates this decision; I had kids late and the decision not to pursue a high flying career predates them (I dialled back my work commitments in order to pursue a personal interest).

She's right, women can't have it all, as far as I can see. And generally speaking those who say they do have made choices I consider undesirable to achieve their aims. I didn't want to return to work when my baby was mere weeks old, for example.

My idea of having it all is having a job which allows me to finance my lifestyle and affords me a good life/work balance.

My mum has a high flying career. I do not wish to make the same sacrifices she has made, some of which she regrets.