To think that women can't have it all..........

[Anon230982]

Before I had my sons I was on a sound educational/career pathway. I wasn't conflicted, I had singular purpose and no responsibility for anything else other than myself. I went to University, got a good degree and started with a job in social care, working for vulnerable adults. I quickly gained a good reputation with my clients, built positive relationships with colleagues and planned to undertake further professional training to progress my career. Then, in 2014, when I was 32 I had my first son. Suddenly, I was given mundane jobs at work, the secondment I was on wasn't extended and I left to have Baby No.1. I took nine months off...…..and experienced the life-changing transition that is becoming a parent. I had a trauma birth, suffered from post-natal anxiety and depression, and eventually, with the help of family and friends, defeated it and got level again. Then back to work. Juggled a very demanding role with the added responsibilities of parenthood, and developed the role to a high standard. My workload was the same on part-time hours as it would have been on full-time hours. When a senior position came up I went for it. Only to be told that I hadn't got it, but I was "an expert in my field." The person who was employed often tapped me for advice. No support from senior colleagues. Left work again in winter 2018 to have Baby no.2. Was told, by an elderly friend of my late Gran's, that "women can't have it all." At the time, I thought she was just a product of her generation but I've had time to think and reflect. Nature is old-fashioned; women naturally prioritise their babies over pretty much everything else. It's (usually) the woman who is the primary care-giver in the first year, who sacrifices her thoughts and actions and identity to the continuous demands of nurturing a little person. Men make a massive transition into parenthood as well, don't get me wrong but now having gone through it twice, I do believe life changes more completely for the woman. Women are primed by nature to sacrifice their own personal self for this purpose; all modern opinions on gender equality are kicked to the kerb. My husband leaves for work in the morning neatly groomed, looking like a respectable adult. I spend my days crawling around on the floor, half naked, eating scraps of food. I can't finish a sentence, or take a crap in peace. He has board meetings and runs a Team. I can just about remember the words to "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star," he delivers speeches and writes binary code for operational management. I can't remember what it's like to hold a conversation with another adult that doesn't involve the words "poo on my hands/awake all night/teething). I can't finish a cuppa. I manage to get dinner done, and look after my sons in the day. And to me, that feels like a massive achievement. Everything else has had to slide. When I do return to work I won't be the same person. That's no choice - it's old-fashioned nature at it's best - it's what motherhood has done to me. My values have changed, as well as my priorities. I'm a mum first - and something else second but I'm not sure what.That's not to say I'm unhappy. I'm probably the happiest I've ever been despite passing my days feeling like an unpaid domestic servant. (And a naked one at that.) But sometimes that lady's words come back to me when I see my husband suited and booted, going to work in the morning and I wonder, was she also trying tell me not to put too much expectation on myself...…..being a mum is the hardest job going and perhaps...….just perhaps for a limited time only you forego your modern right to equality at work...…...you're out of the game for a long time, long enough for someone else to fill your space and for you to lose a lot of work-related skill. There's a significant loss of work-confidence mothers often experience after giving birth and being on maternity leave. Going back into a professional environment where people expect you to deliver and be dressed isn't easy. Perhaps you can't have it all. Or maybe you can't have it all and be happy. What do others think?

The idea that in all cultures except the capitalist West women are constantly with their children is a total invention (and normally has a lot of 'noble savage' stuff thrown in too). In many, many cultures children, even babies (probably not newborns - but no one's suggesting women going back to work immediately) are cared for by many people beyond their mother, so if it's a biological imperative for women to not be separated from their children for any length of time then it's a biological imperative that humans are very good at ignoring.

It completely depends on what your definition of having it all is.

You obviously can't stay in a full time job and stay at home with your child full time - physically impossible to be in 2 places at once, so from that it depends on "what having it" all is. (The sooner other women stop tearing strips off and judging other women for their choices might make life easier for them)

I think there will obviously always be that slight difference in the workplace for men, until they can carry and deliver babies, as women will always need a certain amount of time out of their job to have their baby. This should not be to their detriment in their career though

For me, I currently have it all, As in I have everything I need and at this moment in time I have everything i want. I have a great hubby, a get to stay with my child all day until he goes to school in a few years and we have a nice life. I also have options and choices , if I woke up tomorrow and wanted a change, I could put him in nursery and go back to work.

I don't necessarily think it's correct that all women have that switch that once they have a baby, they want to spend all day with them, nurturing them, I have a friend Who went back to work after 8weeks of having her daughter as she couldn't think of anything worse than staying at home all day with a baby. Nor could she of financially, but she would say, well yes I have a child and my career, I have it all.

I have 2 friends who really don't feel they have it all or even bloody half, they don't want to be back at work but have to be. So they are in a job they dislike as they can't afford not to and all they want is to be at home they have no options and no Choices.

One friend doesn't want children at all, and has a great career and would say she has it all, career, holidays, cars and freedom to be selfish, that's her version of having it all.

I think "having it all" surely is being happy and content and that comes in so many different shapes and forms and is personal to the individual. Some can achieve this and other cant, that's just life and circumstance.

My thoughts are that someone has to nurture the children. So you either do that as a parent or allow someone else to do it and go back to work.

I have a career AND put my kids first, on the whole. My career was putting my kids first because I wanted to maintain financial responsibility

How? For my own benefit I want to know how you do that? Can you go to all the sports days? The assemblies and recitals? The matches and the ferrying to activities? If you can’t then who does? I am not being accusatory - I just need to know how I can do both 🤷‍♀️

I do believe you 'can have it all'. But it's all relative. For example I earn double now than what I did before I had my dc. I've also gained a masters and doctorate since then. I work less (4days term time only), and do travel more, both as a family and with friends/dh. Currently on a weekend abroad with dh- which we do a few times a year. We only have one dc (and a furry much loved family member) so it's easier to do it all with one, especially when they become more independent.

I think so many things will influence on whether you feel you're 'winning at life':

• job

-salary -partner/family support -money -number if children etc It can be done though but just depends on your expectations

.......and also hit the deadlines, be at the 6pm meetings, attend the week long away training etc etc

I have a career AND put my kids first, on the whole. My career was putting my kids first because I wanted to maintain financial responsibility

AgnesNaismith I think the point being made is that they believe by being financially secure is putting your child first

Why the fuck are you crawling about the floor naked and eating scraps? You've become a mother, not some sort of feral Siberian wolf child. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

The idea that in all cultures except the capitalist West women are constantly with their children is a total invention

Any proof of that?

I suspect it’s better for children to be raised “by a village” with a key constant around them as opposed to shipped off to childcare for hours on end.

Totally agree with you OP. You can’t have it all. I think we do young people a massive disservice implying that they can. I was constantly told I could ‘have it all’ at school. Flexible hours / family friendly jobs didn’t even factor into my career planning. I wish someone had sat me down and told me that it was a load of shit. Of course I probably wouldn’t have listened to them anyway .

surely there's also option 3: a partner who is willing to make the sacrifices in their career rather than expecting the mother to do it?

Women on average marry men who are older and higher-earning. That alone is enough to ensure it will generally make more sense for women to make the career sacrifices.

If money didn't determine who made the sacrifices, who wanted children more probably would. Where money is equal, do we believe that just as many men as women would want children more than their partner, and thus be willing to back down in a stand-off about whose career should come second?

AgnesNaismith I think the point being made is that they believe by being financially secure is putting your child first

Is it though, or will that lead to a future of emotionally stunted adults?

I also hate that I sound like a 1950’s housewife

I also hate that I sound like a 1950’s housewife 😳😳😳😳

I think the women who talk about all what they do is for their children, they are saying they don't have it all.
If they are going to work core hours their kids are at home but would prefer to be at home, but can't because they need to be out earning , it's forfeiting something and I think that's really tough.

Again, are those of us who work and dont feel guilt or yearning to be at home biologically flawed? Or are we more evolved? Because out emotion suit our current environment better?

And herein lies the problem. We feel the need to defend our own choices by comparing ourselves when actually it's not that simplistic. Maybe your circumstances dictate that your biological need manifests in a way that is different to traditional perception and actually you are neither " biologically flawed" or "more evolved" Maybe this is part of the evolutionary process or maybe this is unique to you.

Women in the family would care for each others children .The idea that women would be so isolated in the home with their children is a fairly new one and nothing to do with biology.

No but it is related to societal trends which subsequently drive evolution and ultimately influence biology.

Why the fuck are you crawling about the floor naked and eating scraps? You've become a mother, not some sort of feral Siberian wolf child
And why do you feel the need to belittle someone else's experience?

So you either do that as a parent or allow someone else to do it and go back to work.

Or you also nurture your child and work. Child dont just need care and nurturing between the hours of 9 and 5. Parents are the biggest influencers on children. Even if they work. Fathers have still be huge influences on kids in the last hundred years despite working while the mother is at home.

How? For my own benefit I want to know how you do that? Can you go to all the sports days? The assemblies and recitals? The matches and the ferrying to activities? If you can’t then who does? I am not being accusatory - I just need to know how I can do both

When I was with the children's father one of us always made it to events. Never missed anything. My parents would sometimes attend but with one of us. His parents lived far away.

My daughter chose to do my hobbie. So when events are on we are both there anyway. My son does rugby, which I am involved with. Weekends pretty much revolve around their hobbies. Both train once a week mid week. I usually take them. I train with my daughter, and usually catch up on work or rugby paperwork while his is training. Dp will do dinner.

Then I was a single parent. At first exh would go to stuff if i was struggling and have them 1 (occasionally 2 nights a week) i used annual leave or took unpaid time off if i needed to. I would have to plan well in advance. I wont work weekends. I became a single parent in my earliest 30s. I had worked my way up knowing I wanted a job that paid well and was monday to friday. Had plenty of annual leave and some flexibility. It meant that all my twenties job moves and promotions had to be carefully considered and I have always had to not be afraid to push employers on what they will offer. I am either good at selling myself, or blagging people. Not sure which one yet

I have just been head hunted to a company who have given me all the flexibility I require and 30 days holdiay.

I live with dp now. Since the kids dad decided he couldnt be arsed with his own kids and would rather parent his girlfriends, dp has become more of a father figure than we planned. He does afternoon school run for youngest. Dd (16) let's herself in but is usually back as dp is leaving for ds.

I come hone soon after. Usually about 4-4.30. Depending on my work load I do sometimes work in the evening after ds goes to bed and I have had some time with dd.

For me, putting kids first doesnt always mean staying at home. It does for some people and that's what's right for them. But It can be making sure I personally could provide for them. If I had been a sahp and exh lost his shit. When I fled I would have nowhere to go. All my career moves were carefully calculated towards the role I am in now. Senior role, flexibility, good wage good holidays.

Oh and I no longer speak to my parents as they decided his abuse of me wasnt that bad.

Some luck has been involved. The biggest piece of luck was having a manager who could always win any discussion. He could know nothing about what he was talking about, but sound like he did. He taught me loads about how to maintain control in meetings, how to sell myself, not get thrown off track in meeting when someone says something strange or confrontational, how to make people believe in you and follow your plan willingly.

Exh has become a bit of a loser. Doesnt really know what he is doing day to day. Kids dont even bother anymore.

And herein lies the problem. We feel the need to defend our own choices by comparing ourselves when actually it's not that simplistic. Maybe your circumstances dictate that your biological need manifests in a way that is different to traditional perception and actually you are neither " biologically flawed" or "more evolved" Maybe this is part of the evolutionary process or maybe this is unique to you.*

If you are talking biology of course you compare. If a great white shark suddenly became able to over come a biology and only started eats seaweed, people would compare that shark to other to see why that sharks biological need isnt driving behaviour

I disagree it's a biological imperative to stay at home with your child. But I dont actually think I more evolved. That's was meant to be tongue in cheek.

But if it's a human biological drive, the we would all feel it. The ones who dont must have something different about them. People would be interested in how it's different and what makes it different.

Is it though, or will that lead to a future of emotionally stunted adults?

Why would it?

That would work the assumption that every sahp is what makes a good parent. Most are some are not and created emotionally stunted children

Children grow into emotional stunted adults all the time. Irrespective of wether their parents work or not. Plenty of them dont, again irrespective of parents employment status.

Dd is definitely not emotionally stunted. She is very emotionally intelligent. fat more than I was at that age. She has always been an easy child. I had one tantrum from her as a toddler. That was it. Ds is only 8 so I dont really judge his emotional intelligence at this point. But he is a happy healthy kid.

Both are eepsute their prick of a dad. Both enjoy school, have friends, socialise, have hobbies, have bad moods and down days, sleep and eat well.

If they were struggling. I would look at what I can change. But right now, it's all good.

a biological imperative to stay at home with your child
I never said it was a biological imperative to stay at home with your child. It's a biological imperative to look after your child. However, that can be interpreted in numerous ways and we shouldn't criticize those who feel best placed to do that whilst at home or those who think they are able to do that better whilst working (and varying shades in between). The problem is that society doesn't allow for those scenarios to exist without each being a critical reflection of the other.

Hoolajerry sorry yes, mis worded that.

I am not criticising anyone. I am discussing it. I am saying i agree that for me putting my kids first is different to your as is my view of what's best for my kids. Neither is right or wrong it's just different.

But if we bring that back to the OP, if we have both done what we feel is best, we have both 'had it all'.

You did speak about being a sahm anyhow that was biologically driven. I dot believe it is. I just believe we all have different values and different experiences. Therefore we want different things. But it's not a biological difference.

I am genuinely interested in the reasons why people have different reactions
To anything not just child rearing. Just a quirk of mine that I find people and the differences between people interesting.

To anything not just child rearing. Just a quirk of mine that I find people and the differences between people interesting

Me too. I've enjoyed reading your responses and having a balanced discussion 🙂

I read so many posts by women like this, not to mention all the scummy mummy gin blogs, about how motherhood turns you into a shrieking wreck. I can identify up to a point, but invariably the writers of these things have more than one child, and often pets too.

So I think, they don't really mean this. If they meant it, and truly felt it, why would they go back for more? It can't be that bad or they'd stop at one and not get a dog.

@Hoolajerry me too. My brother is a sahd. If you had asked me a year before he had kids if he would make a good sahd,.I would have laughed.

I have seen him complain his Jean's shrunk when mum washed them.....he had his wifes jeans on. Dont even ask why mum was doing his washing.

But he is amazing at it. The kids are doing amazingly. The house is like a show home. His wife is very happy in her career. He struggled to find a career he liked though he was well paid. But he absolutely adores it. Its definitely been a positive for them.

He knows my feelings in being independent, but if they are happy, that all that matters.

I think being a sahp or wohm is such a personal issue. No right or wrong.

FWIW, I think I was just having a bad day and bei g a bit dramatic talking about crawling naked in the floor. We have all been there.

But if she wants to change it, she could. She just needs to decide wether working or sahp would work best for then all. If the sahp, is miserable, I do t think it's good for everyone.

iggly - here's an article from an anthropologist who has worked extensively with the Beng people (Cote D'Ivore), about how they very much do not have a 'mother as sole caregiver' model: www.academia.edu/576355/Who_Minds_the_Baby_Beng_Perspectives_on_Mothers_Neighbours_and_Strangers_as_Caretakers

If you can't read it (I can't work out whether or not you need an academia.edu account to read it as it keeps autosigning me into yours) say and I'll copy and paste some key bits for you

Also, @Iggly, on this bit:

I suspect it’s better for children to be raised “by a village” with a key constant around them as opposed to shipped off to childcare for hours on end.

I think it's quite amazing that so many people think they know what is better for children or can predict outcomes for them (like the person who said they'd be 'emotionally stunted' if no one goes to their sports day) when actual, large-scale peer reviewed research has produced such contradictory and inconclusive results on the effects of childcare or working mothers. If there was such a clearcut 'right' thing to do then everyone would know about it because it would stand out very clearly in the research.

YANBU OP, that old lady was right. It's naive to think otherwise, because nature/God/[insert deity of choice here] gave most women such strong maternal urges that once they have children their mindset changes completely and everything/everyone else is less of a priority. For this reason, no matter what legislation comes into force, working mothers will always feel torn between their children and their career.

OP, there's no point in dwelling on the obvious, so try to enjoy this period of your life, because it will fly by soon enough, and you'll still have many years ahead of you to focus on a career afterwards, if that's what you want.