To take heed of my manager's comment?

[OuttedSelf]

NC as this is quite outing if my manager is a MNetter.

On Friday drinks my manager (female) got slightly tipsy and told me that if I ever hoped to have a chance in hell at getting in her position I'd have to make some sacrifices. She didn't necessarily elaborate but from what I know of her she has 2 dcs which she claims to have had in quick succession to reduce the amount of time she spent outside of the boardroom. Her DH is a SAHD and she'd be the first to admit that were it not for him being in that position she couldn't have risen up the ranks like she did.

This conversation came about when she asked me about my partner whom I've recently broken up with. I did mention it is a sad state of affairs as he's the one I thought I'd go on to marry and have dcs with but of course that will now not happen.

She and I have a great working relationship and I have confided in her in the past but on Friday she put a new spin on things. I have the utmost respect for her and she's dealt with some grisly situations in our workplace but she just put it to me as in 'you can't have it all' something or someone has to give.

I'm not entirely sure what my AIBU is but listening to her made me re-think things entirely. I can see over the years that in my work place that women who were once flying the flag dropped behind once they'd come back from maternity leave or requested flexi time or whatever. She didn't do any of that bar the maternity leave - her DH has always been 'on call' for the dcs. She's often the first to arrive in the office and often the last to leave. She's well respected in our field but it seemed to me that she was saying this is basically because she's configured such an arrangement with her DH.

I know that not everyone is as fortunate as she is and indeed she can afford to be the sole bread-winner but it seemed like she was giving me a bit of a warning signal about my decisions to come.

I'd be cautious about the idea of buying in help, (I thought this pre-dc). We buy in a lot of help to work ft but you can't pay people to care about your dc, only family will do that so eyes must be open about the trade offs.

ILiveAtTheBeach - My Mum says the Womens Lib has a lot to answer for. She thinks it's dreadful how women are now expected to run a home and raise kids and bring in a good wage. It's too much and women are crumbling under the pressure.

This
And on top of all that - a woman still has to be a sex kitten in the bedroom and look like she dropped off the cover of Playboy.
in my maddest moments i think, in some ways, things have never been worse for women actually.

very hard to have it all.
something has to give.

My DH couldn't do the job he does and have got to the level he has if I hadn't been at home and taken on the bulk of the childcare.

There are many careers where you cannot have both.

DH does not have it all and neither do I, but together we manage it all.

*

Pretty much the same here. Although I work, when I had DD I worked PT and my career took a back seat. Infact I now work FT but have a term time job and no longer do the actual job I trained for (teacher).

But as a result of me being happy to be the one to take a back seat, it has meant that DH is the one who has gone much higher with his career. As a result of that he does the longer hours, etc. He couldn't have achieved what he has without me being around when DD was younger to take on the lion's share of the childcare.

In my experience it is very hard for both parents to have full on careers and to have children at home, especially when they are younger. Something has to give and that normally means one of the couple has to put their career on hold, sometimes permanently. In our case - it was mine. But that was my choice, and also it would have made more financial sense as DH's earning potential was far greater than my own - though the finances wasn't the ultimate reason.

Obviously for single parents it is all much harder - they don't have the other somebody to take on the childcare, etc.

We worked around things by throwing money at the situation. Ultimately though we have managed 1 child and being FT because of extremely helpful grandparents on both sides. Without this we wouldn't have had a hope.
However a second child would be out of the question as we would be spread too thin.

Seige I agree with everything you say but I disagree with the value society places on these things and the cultural expectations of either men or women. I would think (this is an assumption) that the vast majority of parents would like a shot at a reasonable career/sufficiently renumerated job and to spend time with their children.

No one can have it all. My husband and I both work in decent but not high powered jobs. We earn a bit more than the national average but don't need to work longer than our contracted hours, can be very flexible and our hours can change easily as our family does. We could both go for promotions and my husband could change industry for a huge pay rise but that would mean he would have to work longer hours and miss out on family time.

We'd like to have more income but we're comfortable, in stable jobs and both get to spend time with our daughter so can't complain.

I wouldn't put too much store on it, I think she was trying to make you feel better about your break up.

When I had my first my then boss told me I would need two nannies and a driver :)

It is nothing to do with being male or female. It is to do with being the main carer for children, or other dependants, or not.

If you are the main carer, the children are your first priority, and your job has to fit round that.

If you are not the main carer, your work can be your first priority, and your family can fit around that.

No one can have two top priorities.

i know which one I consider more fun

It is nothing to do with being male or female. It is to do with being the main carer for children, or other dependants, or not.

Sharon, with respect, that's very blinkered. Do you think it's entirely coincidental that it's women on the wrong end of the pay gap, women who do the vast majority of the unpaid caring roles, and the NMW paid caring roles, in our society, and women whose careers suffer after they and their usually male partners have children? After all, there's shared parental leave, and after the baby stops being BF, either parent could be its primary carer. And you don't need a vagina to look after elderly relatives.

Barbarian, if you consider payment as the ultimate statement of value that a capitalist society places on particular roles, then I think that gives us a pretty clear indication of what 'we' consider to be valuable, or not.

I would think (this is an assumption) that the vast majority of parents would like a shot at a reasonable career/sufficiently renumerated job and to spend time with their children.

It sounds like a perfectly reasonable assumption, but if we as a society want that, why, given equality legislation etc, don't we have it? Surely it can't be coincidence/lack of female ambition that means that women leave the workplace in such huge numbers after having children? What is keeping women and men from achieving the nice balance you talk of?

Seigeofennis, it is largely women who CHOOSE to be the main parent.

Choices in a vacuum sharon, choices in a vacuum. How much is actual 'choice' and how much has been socially engineered since birth?

I know a good few successful career women who popped out a sproglet or two, under the impression that in this day and age there would be no cultural expectations or discrimination, only to find a year or two down the road that they had been shafted in every possible direction. Including by the 21st century man they had procreated with.
'Choice' indeed.

I'm a single parent and have to travel every month or so, but only within the UK. I manage it by living close to family; this meant moving 150 miles and changing companies.

I can only do it by planning well in advance and getting my mother to sleep in while I'm away. I try very hard to organise things so these trips don't clash with evening activities such as swimming lessons etc so I can do these.

Having said all that, I'm pretty sure my career would be better if I didn't have the DCs but I wouldn't change it. It's the choice I made.

I'm lucky in that my job is mobile and flexible and I manage my own diary, so what with logging onto the laptop in the evening and surreptitiously using my work phone at school events, I've managed all school things to date.

It's bloody hard though. I'm pretty sure I manage everything by the skin of my teeth. When I became a single parent I realised that actually, I work to live and that my satisfaction is derived from more than just my job. At some point they'll need me less, and eventually they'll fly.

I do think that when I have a child I will take the minimum maternity leave and go straight back. It took me so, so long to get myself even marginally sorted - I just couldn't risk it.

And I hate my job, too! But I hated being out of work much more.

She is right I am afraid

Eh, I don't know though - Lean In speaks a lot about having a partner, as in an actual partner, someone who halves things with you and is your cheerleader. I think with that person, and in a good, supportive company there's no reason you can't achieve what you want to achieve.

Also if you outsource the housework/jobs you would otherwise do yourself, which is expensive, but offset that against getting to the level you want to be at and the higher pay packet... it's completely doable.

I have no kids yet, so possibly I am naive, but I have the lovely partner (who would be okay with being a SAHD if required), so I can't see why not. The high level woman who runs our dept does a 4-day week and she has a little kid.

I realised fairly early on that the female senior leaders who were wheeled out as examples at our big multinational all either didn't have children or had a husband/partner who was either SAHD or part time. Since my DH (then boyfriend) worked for the same company and had similar career ambitions to me I figured out pretty quickly that I was never going to make the very top levels if we have children! So far he has compromised for a few years and now I'm compromising just to live in the same city let alone bringing kids into it!
Of the people I know who were identified as 'high potential' women who have children one is absolutely following the planned trajectory and her husband has gone PT along with her getting a nanny for the days he works, the other has turned down two excellent opportunities to progress in order not to have to travel too often away from her children and she and her DH both still work FT and do equal care.
In both cases their own decisions,

Choices in a vacuum sharon, choices in a vacuum. How much is actual 'choice' and how much has been socially engineered since birth?

it is absolutly, all, always a choice.

You will find there is no pay gap what so ever between men and CHILDLESS women.

The most senior women at work (pharmaceuticals) do have children but they took much less maternity leave than is normal now and went back full time fairly quickly. PT work is the killer because for years on end you are less able to fully commit to work. Some jobs are still seen as being a FT job, even if some men do them PT, so that cuts off opportunities, at least for a short while (until you return FT).

Agree you need a fully committed partner who is prepared to share the hit on their career of parenthood. Because if we continue to breed with men who think childcare is women's work we'll continue to be shafted in the workplace by men who have put their career before their partners. So if you want children have them with a man who will take 6 months paternal leave, who will work PT, who will take time off for sick children, who will go to school concerts, etc etc.

I've always wondered at the reason behind having children if you are going to continue to work all the hours that god gives you outside the home. I mean otherwise you are just seeing a large part of your salary go on things for the children and having to do things like prepare lunches or whatever without the pleasure of spending time with them. Why would anyone want children under those circumstances, especially a mother who on top of that has to suffer nine months of pregnancy and childbirth.

I understand perfectly well that for many people circumstances can change and there in the end there is no choice, but having the choice, why?

I went to uni with a lot of boarding school types, tbh they were closer to their parents than I was.
My DM was a SAHM and didn't really enjoy it - we would have all been better off if she'd been able to go back to work, which she loved. We get along swimmingly now though! She's more of an 'adult' person than a 'children' person.
Your boss is right though I'm afraid OP, it's extremely hard to progress your career with children. You need to have the financial resources to outsource a lot of the parenting. I am in a senior management role we have a nanny and a cleaner. We couldn't do it without this. I love my job but I have no intention of aiming higher. Not because I don't want to, or don't have the ability, but because I would see less of the DC and my influence as a parent hugely decreased.
Also, as the DC get older I feel they need me more and more, they are well cared for in our home, but it's not the same as a parent.
I don't really want to but I'm seriously considering giving up work to spend more time with them in a couple of years time, when my eldest moves to middle school and the sport, friends, school work starts going to another level.
Obviously DH is in the same situation as me but he earns more so it makes sense for me to be the one to take a back seat..

It sounds to me that your colleague is justifying her choice and decisions in life. Hers is one choice and one life at the furthest end of a spectrum. A life and decision she is happy with. But she doesn't have it all.
I think, in reality, women are sometimes surprised at their physical and emotional reaction to having children. suddenly what is best for the children becomes centre stage. I have at various points compromised both career and time with my kids and muddled along. I made an absolute decision about 5 years ago that I would not commute into London because of the hours that breakfast and afterschool run. That has restricted me to a half hours drive from home. But I don't see that as a sacrifice. I am glad that my skills and talents give me scope to get a job that pays enough and fits in.