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.

No news there. Women who want to get on in a career had better have a wife or equivalent at home to take care of the other parts of their lives. Workplaces are set up to reward the traditionally male ability to sell your soul to your employer.

Sad comment on 'equality' isn't it?

Women who want to get on in a career had better have a wife or equivalent at home to take care of the other parts of their lives

Or a partner who is supportive and is a true co-parent.

I didn't need a wife or equivalent at home. I had dh, who doesn't automatically assume it will be me who steps in when there are childcare issues.

We now work together In Our own business. Previously, I earned more than dh and having kids didn't damage my career.

I think that's the key. If your partner isn't able to do this then, a nanny would be needed.

Sharon -- (Allegedly) no pay gap between men and childless women means men who choose to have children can still earn a high income but women who have children are penalised.

What you say about childless women earning comparable income is not really true. Teaching and nursing are both grossly undervalued and it is no coincidence that both of those professions are dominated by women.

I am a SAHM and this is the reason why Dh's career has been as successful as it is.

I am very happy and I think that makes a difference too. I never had a career, just jobs as I never really used my degree. Dh has a career.

As women we can't have it all, something has to give on some level.

For us, the answer has been a combination of:

• having a supportive partner who is willing to share childcare
• us both having reached a point in our careers where we have credibility and therefore flexibility
• being able to afford good quality and flexible childcare. Our nanny is amazing, I think a live-in nanny would be a step better for flexibility.

I never worked part-time after DCs, partly in an effort to show commitment initially, but also because I work in a role where I'd be doing the job full-time anyway, just being paid less for it.

I think you can definitely both have big jobs, you just have to shake off the mindset that you have to be joined at the hip to your DCs at all times to be a good parent. I see that a lot on here. I get a huge amount of satisfaction from my achievements and that in turn makes me a much better parent than the alternative.

There's a fundamental misconception that its just 'high powered careers' that are incompatible with parenting.

The problem isn't really 'I want to be a CEO and see my kids too'.
The problem is even a fixed hours job in the public sector is incompatible with school hours, holidays and expectations. You don't have to be a CEO to find 9am-3pm, 12 weeks holiday etc a year tricky. That's a problem for many, many types of jobs.

The real talent drain isn't after maternity leave. Its when school starts. And whilst a CEO might have the money for cast iron childcare, lots of parents won't. Make the availability of wrap around and holiday care mandatory and you'll see far more women in the workplace.

Some of the comments on here are infuriating.
women's lib has a lot to answer for - really?!

If you have enough money to throw at the problem all is good but that level of money is probably a decent chunk of a good salary - boarding school, live in nanny type money.

Or one partner makes career sacrifices (or both do). Given most childcare can't take kids with bugs that's a lot of last minute time off for the little germ factories - ignoring when you're ill as well!

This thread is depressing but very interesting to hear people's views.

I genuinely believe that there is starting to be a cultural shift towards it being more acceptable for both men and women to take on childcare responsibilities, and more and more big businesses are trying to encourage a flexible working culture for men and women. News like Mark Zuckerburg taking two months paternity leave are huge positives although we still have a long way to go.

From a personal PoV, I returned from mat leave 18 months ago to a very demanding communications job. I came back 4 days a week and have been promoted since. This would not have been possible without my husband's company being flexible so that we could share childcare (DD goes to nursery) and the support of my own colleagues.

Yes there have been times when I've had to tell my boss no, or times when I've barely seen DD for a couple of days so I have made sacrifices on both sides. I feel at the moment I am just about managing a work life balance while still progressing at work. It is bloody hard though. I have had to sacrifice other things, like some friendships, 'me time' (whatever that is) and making my home nice, in order to feel like I'm not neglecting work or family excessively.

I don't want to do this forever, but I am willing to slog at it for a few more years I the hope it will get easier.

Dixie - sure Mark Z can take 2 months paternity leave but does every lowly analyst working for FB face no set backs, criticism etc if they dare to do the same?

Success and seniority buy flexibility. It isn't the same further down the chain.
I take little comfort from what Mark Z (or Sheryl Sandberg or any other senior exec) do. Until it applies equally to all employees it does little to help most women.

Said before on other threads but there's too much focus on 'how many female directors/CEOs are there' type discussions. It has little real impact on retaining women in the workplace.

And for those happy to give up careers, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that choice. But it would be risky indeed not to have some back up plan if you're at all concerned about financial security for you and your family.

The point of being a partnership, and then a family, surely, is that everyone's needs / success gets / happiness taken into account? And that the ideal is to maximise the 'total needs met / success / happiness' of the total group, not to consider each person's individually?

So in our family there are 4 of us - DH, DS, DD and me. At different points since our marriage, different needs have taken priority in order to maximise the success / happiness of the whole.

When DS was first born, and I was at home with him, we went abroad for DH to work - a career-enhancing opportunity he could not have taken had i still been working full time with no children.

We came back because DH's mum was ill - staying 'for a successful career' would have made DH massively unhappy.

When DS became a school-induced selective mute and we needed to move town to a different school, DH compromised his career progression to take a job in a suitable town.

I was a SAHM until DD started school, because both my DCs were somewhat 'unusual' when younger, and their happiness and success (and thus the total success and happiness of the family) was maximised by consistent care.

When I decided to retrain as a teacher, DH stopped doing the 'extra' at work that made the difference between 'driving for maximum progression' and 'doing fine where he was' to allow me to do so. He became a SAHD for a short time during my final placement.

Since then, I have worked P/T, full time and P/T again, always to do with 'success / happiness' of the whole family - whether that is allowing the DCs to be successful in specific extracurricular activities or in their schoolwork, or getting a better balance between what DH and I contribute to 'keeping the family ticking over', or enabling DH or I to maximise our career progression at critical points.

But the point is that it is always a decision based on the 'overall good of the family unit' (and sometimes wider family members), not an individual accounting.

Atenco Thu 03-Dec-15 05:26:36
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.... having the choice, why?

Because a) wanting children and b) wanting a career aren't mutually exclusive.

i'm not sure it's depressing - it's clear that if you a realist and have your eyes open there are many ways to juggle having a reasonable career and a family, i think it's better that people have realistic expectations about the trade-offs involved though. You're more likely to get depressed if you go in with rose tinted spectacles and no appreciation of the difficulties.

Thurlow, I do understand that they are not mutually exclusive, but I also understand that you cannot be in 2 places at once, and some 'high flying career' parents genuinely see very little of their children, however much they were 'wanted'.

DNs, for example - both parents always out of the house 7-8 every weekday. One sometimes home for bedtime now that the DNs are a little older, but when they were younger, all children got up and put to bed by nanny. One parent on call at weekends, so often absent or on telephone. Other has time-consuming hobby, and also often travels for work, leaving on Sundays.

In an average week, therefore, it has been rare for the children to see either parent on a weekday, and if they do it has only been for the last 30-60 minutes of the day. True 'with children' time is also scarce at weekends.

School holidays are mostly covered by children staying full time with aunt or grandparent, both remote from the family home.

I appreciate that having 'family holidays' for c. 4 weeks a year IS when they enjoy having the children that they wanted, but while both parents have very successful careers, I am not entirely convinced of the 'happiness / success' of the overall family unit - the children are ... difficult... in behavioural terms, and, perhaps understandably, extremely demanding of any adult attention that is on offer to them.

that's your opinion though teacher, let's not judge other people's choices. Clearly they're doing their best as they see it. Perhaps they have huge student loans to pay off or working these hours is all that's on offer in their chosen careers and one person not working isn't feasible.

It is not my opinion that they are not happy - they will say exactly the same, and frequently lament their unhappiness.

However, having chosen not to compromise career in any way for children (they have no specific reason why they have to work those hours or earn that money, it is to maintain maximum progress in their careers) for so long, it is extremely difficult to suddenly decide to compromise IYSWIM? They are locked into a specific mindset and way of living, and I do completely understand that making any change would be a huge thing for them.

(I would also say in fairness that their level in their chosen careers comes with certain 'common expectations' - type of house and car, private schooling, type of holiday, level of entertaining - that do cost money to maintain. Which is why making a change would be such a big deal - they are 'locked into' a lifestyle and set of values, and deciding to compromise in terms of career progression in favour of a little more time with their children would also entail deciding to compromise in some of the 'associated lifestyle expectations')

Thurlow, my comment was from the parents point of view, what's in it for the parent?

And maybe feminists have let society down but not taking the fight a bit further? I left the country I live in for ten years and came back to see working hours had become much longer, particularly for executives. So of course there were a lot less women in executive positions because that meant leaving the office at 8 at night.

I have a young ds and i work full time as a junior manager in civil service. i dont think it's possible to 'have it all' unless you have the support. i am fortunate that i have a dh who also works full time, but i wouldnt call him a bread winner - we're both on a fairly similar salary, we're managing but certainly not 'well off' and we are lucky to have his family close by who help with ds 2 days per week. My career is at a pretty dead-end. i've been passed over for promotion more than once in my current organisation - once for an older woman and once for a man. i would love to give work up all together and focus on being a better mum, because right now, i dont feel like i'm doing a very good job at anything. alas, mortgage dictates i carry on working....

Part of the problem seems to be long commuting hours, meaning people have to leave the house very early.

I'm 15 mins away and I leave at 7:30 to get a head start on the day. I'd plan to drop child off with CM at 8, and collect child at 6 (barring illness etc, in which case would WFH that day or OH would), and catch up on anything that would need to be caught up on via laptop before bed.

Seems an okay prospect to me, but I'm lucky enough to live close to work and can see it being manageable with a cleaner. I don't earn a particularly high salary at all, but it would be important to me to continue to progress.

Also, when you have a 1 year old, they are more easily portable and won't remember much at all. I'd much rather be further in my career when they were starting school and able to negotiate a 4pm finish to pick them up and spend more time with them when they can actually remember it - just my thoughts on it though, I wouldn't judge others for their choices.

millionprammiles you are right and it definitely isn't enough, but I do think that these examples are inspirational and do get people talking about the issues. It does take time for real change to happen but unless influential people stick their necks out then it will take even longer.

And in fact, Facebook have just introduced four month parental leave for all employees. Yes, it's still very minor in the grand scheme of things, but it there are more and more organisations coming out and saying they want to change things. It's a start, is all I'm saying :)

Part of the problem seems to be long commuting hours, meaning people have to leave the house very early.

This is very true, DH changed this year from a 4 day a week job with a 2h commute to a 5 day a week job with a 20 minute cycle ride to work. It has transformed our lives, in particular because he now works flex-time so can take the kids to school every morning and attend school assemblies etc. Great for us but I do think schools need to stop assuming the 'one parent at home and available for school all the time' model. School hours and holidays and the expectation that we will be available multiple times during the year to attend half hour events in the middle of the day is a killer.

Facebook have just introduced four month parental leave for all employees

Is it paid? Obviously this is very good from an American viewpoint but in this country we already have a year of parental leave that can be split between parents. I know of only one man who has taken his full 6 months though, and surprise surprise his wife is the main earner so she is able to insist on equality using the age old 'I earn more than you so I need to work' argument that men use to shaft their wives careers. But it's funny how when there is financial equality, or the wife earns more, the man's careeer isn't put on hold. All the couples I know in this situation the woman has insisted the man keeps working, at least PT, to maintain his own financial independence.

giddy totally agree with you on men's careers not stumbling when the woman earns more and schools being 50 years behind in the UK.

The paternity leave changes made at my employer saw women lose 2 weeks of leave and men given 4 weeks instead of 2 weeks. For the non pregnant partner they will give sabbaticals for up to 16weeks. Pay is 20% of salary and you still have your health insurance etc (I am in the US).

I have no idea how anyone in the UK is a dual working household once the DC start school. I compare what is offered here to what the offering is in the UK and it's just shocking.

The only woman i knew personally who did 'have it all' when i didnt had her MIL to bring up her children, run her home for her. She had help from all quarters, her dh took on 50 percent of the chores (he also worked long hours full time) and her own parents were around for other baby sitting duties. Her career did not falter. Good for her, but lots of other people were involved in the children's well being. Not everyone has this back up. It proved to me it can be done. Just not for me and others i know as we didnt have anybody!
Whatever you choose or do, someone will say its wrong anyway ( bitter experience of working ft with nursery fees to find, and stay at home parenting)

" had her MIL to bring up her children, run her home for her."
their children, their home