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.

I prepare my DD's for the choices they need to make, my own mothers advice was actually very good. Always earn enough to support yourself, never leave the workplace but train in a profession that supports part time workers. Have a period where you enjoy having your family, a career can happen later.

Pffffffffft a 60 hour week is NOTHING.

But anyways it's not a competition. And it's not like I am pulling 100-120 hour weeks any more.

The main thing I was not prepared for was how my priorities would change. I have turned into the kind of woman I used to look down on. And I was also surprised at how much of a negative impact there would be on my career prospects by taking even a short career break. I believed the "you can have it all" brigade. How wrong was I.

So depressing that men do not have these worries. Millions of reasons why they don't, and no consensus of how to fix it either. We have such a fucking long way to go. I'm like a PP, the older I get the more I see and resent the patriarchy and the pack of lies I believed when I was in my teens and twenties.

Depends what having it all means to you heart.

I think men do find it slightly frustrating too. I sometimes think we have not moved on from the dark satanic mills of yesteryear.

I don't think most women are aware just how much they might want to be with their children. I know I didn't! I had imagined it being a bit like buying a washing machine, you get a baby that year, mine was planned to the month, you know like a holiday....and I was already planning when pregnant the next career move! Ha! I was glad I was able to reduce my hours!

But Want2be wouldn't it be better to work fewer hours and see your kids more? If all these hours weren't necessary for you to advance your career?

Some firms in Sweden are trialling a 6 hour working day. Now THAT - or a standard 4 day week eventually - would be a good use of western wealth!!

100 hour weeks were why I decided that deals work was not for me!

My dh is also in senior management but in an environment in which flexible hours is not possible. I would take normal hours. I can imagine being in that scenario would be a nightmare. Having said that....

I think one of the biggest gifts my parents gave me was to assume I could do anything I wanted. It meant (on the upside) that I don't limit myself and I genuinely think that's helped my career progression. Eg when my dcs were tiny I worked from home 2 days a week and did those hours very flexibly. When I told people I was going to suggest this to the powers that be, I was advised not to ask. My view was given only 10% of senior management were female and I am very good at what I do, I was prepared to take the risk and suggest (not ask) what a sensible working pattern would be for me. My closest female friend at work always says you have to be prepared to back yourself and I think it's a mantra that's worked for me.

I want to be with my babies all the time BUT they have to go to school, have their therapy sessions etc (my son has a development delay and doesn't require therapy from only seeing mummy for 2-3 hours a day). As much as it sounded wonderful the reality was that I HATED staying home. I was itching to get back by the time September came about.

I work in probably one of the most regulated areas of accounting and it is considered one of the toughest because of the deadlines. The team I am on has about 45 days to audit broker dealers and banks subject to PCAOB review. My clients are overseen by the SEC. The deadlines are tight and at the end I have seen partners complete workpapers because we issued in the morning and need to have all workpapers completed and reviewed by midnight.

When I decide to leave I have so many options open to me. I have been offered some wonderful opportunities but I know that staying where I am for a couple more years will enable me to gain experience I won't necessarily get once I move to industry.

Blingly I was doing deal work before I moved to accounting. The hours I do now are a walk in the park compared to what I did before. So happy I made the move away from deal work BUT I should have moved to asset management or a trading position in either a prop or sales role.

I'm not sure I like how she said it, but I think there is truth in there somewhere.

20 years ago I was at a school like that and the message was 'you will have high flying careers and be the leaders of the future'. There was no mention in school about family or children. Perhaps there was an assumption that we could 'have it all'. In many ways it promised us something that many of us wouldn't have. Yes, we often chose not to have it as we wanted to see our small children. But sometimes it wasn't a choice, but a harsh reality forced on us. I was lucky as my mother worked long hours and always said she hoped that I wouldn't do the same, so that balance came from home.

I think it is better to tell teenagers (boys and girls) that they may want to think about how they can balance their desires for career/relationship/children. Pretending that compromises don't exist doesn't do young adults any favours.

Want2b yes, portfolio manager or trader is fantastic for work life balance. Not sure about asset management sales, as you still have dinners etc, but not too bad. Worth saying that many people jump out of the cauldron of life in the professional services firms without necessarily thinking through how their career will develop in industry until they retire, ie what's the long term plan?

I do think that yes, 20 years ago, the "inspiring" message to women was that we could have it all. I am fairly sure all it did was make a generation of women feel inadequate. Times are changing though. one of the biggest surveys showed that the millennials don't want to have it all, and that work life balance is more important to them than pay. I think their attitudes have the potential to really shake up the workplace.

A friend of mine, who is now a (male) partner in a city law firm, said the same thing to me about ten years ago - that you can't have it all. He said there are only so many hours in the day, and if you have an intensive career and a family something has to give as you can't be in two places at once. I think there is an element of truth in what the head said. It is a message that needs to be given to boys as well as girls.

A 60 hour week still means my dh isn't home yet. He has started getting in for 9.30 ish rather than 7.30 ish. He will still work silly hours in the run up to a case but he has stopped doing it week in and week out. I still think he's a workaholic.

Hearts are you OK?

the older I get the more I see and resent the patriarchy and the pack of lies I believed when I was in my teens and twenties.

This, a million times this.

I think she should be appreciated for telling it like it is. Nothing can be changed until we face up to reality.

So she didn't have the answer/couldn't find a way to put a positive spin on it - neither can I right now. This is not an easy problem to solve.

it shouldn't have to be a choice between no work and 45h weeks though, there should be a middle ground that doesn't involve career suicide. It does exist in pockets but I think it's the exception.

Interesting Pico. In my high-falutin' education, I think children weren't so much taken for granted as deemed less important. The point of that extremely expensive education was to get us into firstly Oxford or Cambridge, and then high-flying careers. The fact that that might not be compatible with raising a family just wasn't relevant to their task of equipping us for those careers. It's a million miles better than teaching girls to sew and bake instead of giving them science lessons. However I do think it doesn't hurt to encourage teens (of both sexes) to reflect on their wider aspirations for life rather than simply taking for granted that career success is the ultimate goal.

I agree with your last sentence Bimblywibble.

Me too bimplywimble

Has anyone mentioned all the female heads of equivalent or much bigger more prestigious schools who somehow have managed to have the same career AND have children.
Sarah KD, new head at Oudle. She has four of them for example, and lovely well brought up children they were.
I suspect possibly there is a little regret going on here, or why the need to justify?
Anyway, equally glad my children don't go to her school. Also glad she wasn't spouting those views in a boys schools either.
I too loved the guardian article.

This is so interesting particularly to me in my recent situation. I am a new ish mother. I have just returned to work. I have a professional career but I work for a charity which is, as far as it can be, family friendly, and I always have worked in this sector.

My DC is at a childminder 10 hours a day. DH and I both work 9-5 with commutes. No family, no cleaner. I am on my way to a regional office now, having left home at 5am, although I will be able to leave an hour earlier to do pick up. I frequently have to log in from home to meet deadlines though.

I manage a team of professionals and am a senior member of staff.
I feel like what I'm doing is working.

This thread is making me wonder whether I'm kidding myself, and in a few month/ years it will all fall apart; whether I don't come under the umbrella of having a high flying career because I don't work for Goldman Sachs/ coca cola; or whether what people are really saying is that it's my DC who are suffering from being away from us so much.

Because what I'm doing doesn't seem anything like impossible. It just seems like life.

So any comment from any boy's schools about whether being a high flyer will interfere with fatherhood?

anothernumber

My approach is 'all altruistic' because raising children should be an altruistic act that is primarily about other people; the children. At the moment, I'm preparing my young children for a secure adult life by ensuring that their emotional and developmental needs are met. By being with them so much, I am also showing them what it looks like to care for another human being. I personally think that's the best preparation I can give them for adult life. There are much more important things to prepare children for than being able to work a 60 hour week.

I have absolutely no problem with any career choice my children will choose to make as it will be their lives and their business. However, I would be secretly disappointed if either of them, having chosen to have children, then failed to prioritise the children's welfare, however that might be needed. Children are vulnerable and, within reason, their needs trump our needs. If we don't like having a vulnerable person to care about and put first, we don't need to have them. Once we do have them, we're committed to doing that, or we should be.

There are some career paths which are harder to put on hold than others if you are the type of person (man or woman) who is sure that one day you will want to take 8 years out to raise 2 children to school age or if you know family life will mean you want to radically change your work life balance.

Absolutely - the problem is that this should apply to both sexes - it's a question for the head of Eton as much as the head of Frances Holland.

A working life can last for 40-50 years and children need parenting long past babyhood. Yet because women have ovaries they are apparently uniquely able to organise childcare, look after a sick 7 year old and organise a 14 year old's spots kit.

(And that was sarcasm - I know plenty of men who take responsibility for this stuff, although truthfully not as many men as women.)

Having a high flying career will interfere with fatherhood. They will miss most of it.
No one is disputing that you can't have a high flying career and be a mother. The point is that you will miss most of the childhood.
Children don't go into a cupboard when you are not there. They are living the bulk of their lives without you and they are getting their emotional needs met by the person who is there looking after them.
I know a woman who is a partner in a corporate law firm. She has chosen not to have children. If she did she would hardly see them. It works with her husband because they get nice holidays, eat out late etc. A 2 yr old isn't interested in 'having a lovely fortnight next April' - they want the daily contact for closeness.
In the paper yesterday it said there were few women top chefs because the hours are incompatible with children. They could be top chefs, like men and not see the children.
You can't get around the fact that children require your time. Otherwise it is like Downton Abbey. Lady Mary sees her child for a 'quality' hour- and when it suits her. If her child should suddenly throw up or have a tantrum Nanny would take him away. The child's life is in the nursery and separate. Nanny is the one that really knows him and the one he needs- the one for his real life.
He will then leave Nanny and go away to school. This is all OK if this is what you want but I don't call it 'having it all'.

You can have a high flying career and be a mother, like men have always done. But you can't have it all. You miss a lot. Men just used to accept that they were an absent father- many are now trying to be more hands on and involved.
You can have a career and children- both parents can juggle- it is what most do.
If one parent wants the high flying career they have to be focussed and the job has to come first. People keep saying that when you get to the top you can choose but generally they are climbing up the ladder when children are small and they can't choose. If you are not free to go to Japan next week or haven't extra hours for a major client or deadline they will choose the person who is free.

The truth is that one parent has to organise the childcare, look after the sick child etc . It doesn't have to be the woman. You have to discuss it before children but one of you has to do it
You can't have 2 high flying careers without the child suffering.

Well, the headteacher in the article had a professional, working mother and she either didn't think that gave her the best childhood or is now saying that as an excuse for her childlessness. Take your pick, Aliceinwonderlust. I think in reality, some children grow up happy with the situation and others don't. Same applies for children of SAHMs, but for different reasons - eg they resented not getting out to work, or were suffocating. It depends on the needs of the child, behaviour of the parents, the strength of the emotional bond, appropriateness of the childcare arrangements found, what else is going on in everyone's lives, what sort of relationship you want with each other, amongst other things, no doubt!

mehit I'm not quite certain why you feel able to not only comment but state definitively how all 'high flying' careers work and how much time this leaves for DC, family life etc.

My DH and I are both very successful, yet spend plenty of time with our DC who have not remotely suffered. Both bright, happy teens now .

Some work is more flexible than other work.

Saying that it simply cannot be done is unimaginative at best, arrogant at worst.