To think you can have it all - but only one of you?

[KimKatCourtney]

An old boss made me think about this when she said ‘you absolutely cannot have it all’ and pointed out that the women on the board of the company I work (multi billion £) all have husbands who stay at home.
So all the rhetoric that you can’t have it all as a woman is not actually that , it’s more only one of you can have the high flying career as well as both being successful parents?
I think I am one of those women who seems to have it all but that’s only because my DH is self employed, very flexible and works very few hours (20 ish a week), but at work the women in my team etc don’t really see that part.
I look like I am juggling successfully but I just don’t think it would be possible if my DH couldn’t do drop off every day and pick up most days.
I don’t think both can have it all ?

I agree. My DH has just got a new job, raise etc. He can only do the job because I can do all the nursery runs. I would be limited now to find a new job because I'd need to fit round the nursery.

We both benefit from the new job but he benefits more!

YANBU. I'm only able to have the career I do because DH is a teacher and much more flexible.

I do think this is a shame though, and a sign that more pressure needs to be put on organizations to ensure flex time and reasonable working hours/expectations, because I think we also live in a time where "making it" requires unreasonable amounts of overtime and putting work before family.

It depends on what you mean exactly. There are only so many hours in the day so no matter what if you do one thing you can't do another mutually incompatible thing - that's just the way it is. So if anyone expects to be a parent who does a lot day to day with children and also works long hours in a busy job they're not being realistic.

That said I think it's possible for both parents to have a fulfilling career and some time with their children but that involves both of them wanting to make sacrifices along the way. Unfortunately what usually happens is that the man carries on as if he has no children and the woman becomes the default parent, meaning she either goes part time, gives up or carries on fulltime and is incredibly stressed and tired. In that situation it is the man who loses out in the long term IMO - childhood has a definite limit and there is a specific window in which you can parent your children before they become independent. If you miss that you can't ever have it back.

Yes I agree too - assuming that 'having it all' always involves a successful career.

You could define 'having it all' as having the the combination of career and family that makes you happy. Even if that's working part time etc.

I should add that I think 'having it all' is a truly bizarre concept. It was clearly made up by some idiot journalist at some point and it stuck as a way to make women aspire to a ridiculous situation where they can somehow fit 30 hours of work into a 24 hour day.

You have to compromise all the time in life simply because you have limited time and resources. Men have never 'had it all' in the sense that they have never been in a situation where they've been the archetypal involved parent while also having high-flying careers - it's always been accepted that they essentially don't parent much at all. They've 'had it all' in the sense of having the ability to have children without ever putting much input into it - that's not much of an achievement in my view and not something I aspire to.

I suppose my point is that ‘having it all’ is not a father/mother issue rather than one person is always going to have to sacrifice and usually it is the woman.
In my case (and I work with many senior women) it is all the DH’s that stay at home or are v flexible, none of them have partners who are in equally high flying careers

I think if you both want a full time job and carry on as you did pre children it is not possible, as others have said one persons tends to take a hit! Usually someone needs to be around to be flexible if not you have to pay someone to do this, a nanny or such like, or you have family that fills in the gaps.

I remember when I was pregnant with my daughter, who is now thirteen, that it was never going to be the same. If I had known I think my choices would have been different! I have given up my career as my husband earns much more than me (sexism) and because I have I am now in a position where it is assumed I will do all the stuff.

I agree op

I think you're wrong. My DH and I both "have it all".

We have children and both work part time at our own businesses.

Our children have only ever been in after-school club as childcare. We've split it between us.

If the job you want to do to have your version of ‘it all’ involved a lot of international travel and is totally non-flexible I agree.

But, in my field (public sector) I know couples who are both directors (3rd most senior level) or one director and one the rung below and have kids. Our sector is v flexible though so although you don’t have core hours to cover at that level (ie you work until the work is done) you can be flexible. So one couple I know both work flexibly so they are both 90% FTE so do one shorter day each and each make up the difference at the weekend. They have 3 kids in three different schools with three different sets of term dates!!

The best line management chain I ever worked in there was no-one who wasn’t part time and flexible until you got to the head of the Organisation. The director there had a husband with an equally ‘wow’ job but in a creative industry.

I’ve pulled out these examples as I find them reassuring. And they also show it isn’t the case that you can be senior and flexible but only if everyone below you is full time.

It depends what ‘all’ is. Me and do are both good middle management, both flexible, both get to exercise and see each other. But neither of us are socialble. So having an active social life isn’t part of either or our ‘all’. If it were when would we see each other?

'I suppose my point is that ‘having it all’ is not a father/mother issue rather than one person is always going to have to sacrifice and usually it is the woman.'

Not necessarily. I think it's presented by our society in this way - in order to be a success by very specific standards you have to devote yourself to a job and work very long hours even if that means hardly seeing your family. In that situation, yes, one parent usually has to pick up the slack. But it's by no means the only way to be. It's possible for both parents to work part time and share childcare for example.

I wouldn’t consider working full time in a high flying career ‘having it all’ though, as I’d be missing out on spending time with my family. Having it all means different things to different people. For me, having it all would be having a part time job (approx 20 hours per week) in the career I loved pre children while also being able to spend a large portion of the week with my children.

Not all of us think having a high flying career is a necessary requirement for having it all. DH both have mediocre careers that we're happy in and that allow us both plenty of quality time with the children. We're financially comfortable and have a nice home. I'm not looking for more tbh.

And I am talking about high flying careers eg jobs £100k + or however you define it, of course it depends on what your definition of having it all actually is

I hate the phrase ‘having it all’ and as spaghetti points out, it’s just a made up phrase which unfortunately has been trotted out over the years and become pretty meaningless

I prefer to think in the terms Cherubfish describes. Not ‘having it all’ so much as having a balanced and fulfilling life - for both partners. A life which combines parenting, working, friendships and hobbies in a way which works for both.

There will always be some couples who choose traditional roles of sole earner and SAHP (almost always father in the former and mother in the latter) However I would imagine that in this day and age more couples opt for a way of life that means roles are less heavily demarcated and each partner has a balance of work and home

Yeah I get you. So the directors in my example are £100-120k jobs.

That's what I mean about the 'having it all' thing being nonsense OP. If you actually want to earn £100k+ and are willing to do what it takes to get that, including not seeing your family, then that's what you're going to do. But nobody is required to live that way and it certainly isn't the only definition of success.

DH has a ‘high flying’ career earning £100k+. He wouldn’t say he has it all as he regularly has to work away and misses spending time with his family.

My personal definition of 'having it all' is working enough to fill that need in terms of career, having enough time with the DC and having enough financial stability to balance both. So by my own definition, I have it all. By someone else's definition possibly not.

I think for us a huge factor has been having parents and friends who've been able to build a support network around us; I don't have to take time off when the DCs are unwell because there's always a Granny waiting to tend their every need. I don't have to leave work early to collect them from school on the days I work because we do a bit of a jobshare with another family. Without that support network I'd be shit out of luck when it comes to balancing everything simply because DH works away so frequently.

Op I think that having a stay at home spouse is part of the package for some people. They want to be the more admired partner. So though they probably could do it differently they’d look less sparkly and amazing. They prefer to slog their guts out.

My dad was like that and now regrets it. Since having grandkids he’s spoken to me about how much he missed out on me.

I think it’s the phrase having it all, like when you’re in college having it all means one thing, and it develops, again it changed when I moved out of home and again when I bought my own house and got married.

But for some reason when I think of motherhood and “having it all” it means no change to my career, no change to my social life and throw in raising an exceptional child with home made organic goods from scratch etc.

Like I was perfectly happy to adapt career, relationship, social life etc for every other life change- but having a child and changing is failure. I have to remind myself that I actually define having it all means.

Of course it is very helpful to your career to have a SAHP or one with a smaller PT role. it frees the working to be able to work late or travel at a whim. It would make my life easier certainly.

But the line that “only one of you can have it” is how many professional women give up their careers when the children are babies and then can’t back in later. After all with several mat leaves the H has been able to plough on unencumbered by trivialities such as pick up times and so now it “makes sense” to prioritise his career as he earns more. I see it happen all the time on here and IRL.

It doesn’t need to be like this. Both DH and I make six figures in senior jobs and have two children. We have a nanny which helps enormously and we have moved out of the jobs where we would be working 70 hours every week sideways to Roles that are still full on but not as bad for the hours. We have to juggle but the children are put to bed by one or both parents 6 nights a week and they see one or both of us every morning. Neither of us want to be at a SAHP and both get satisfaction from working. It also means we will be able to retire very early.

The problem is the perception of the “high flying career”. I feel I do “have it all”. I love my job and career and the field I’m in. But it does not prevent me from doing half of school drops/pickups. I would not like to work in a culture where long hours and presenteeism is the norm. I work in a modern sector that embraces flexi working and equal parental leave.

Reading this thread "having it all" would be finding this miraculous part of the world where a family of four can do more than just scrape by on 2 part time jobs.

as others have said "having it all" is a bit of a weird phrase: it's not as if any one person is ever going to enjoy all the possible experiences or experience all the possible successes one human being can enjoy or experience on earth

what I do believe is possible, with careful planning and two partners who communicate well and give each other equal weight, and always with the caveat of good health and a minimum of SN, is a chance for both partners to experience parenthood on an involved level and do something that is important to each partner, whether that is a high-paid job or an emotionally satisfying job or running a perfect traditional household with hand-embroidered monograms

trust is important here: if you both trust each other to do your best for each other, it is easier to plan ahead not just for the next few years but for the longterm