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?

Women can’t have it all but they are expected to do it all.

This is so very true.

My career is going quite well and I have four DC under the age of ten. I studied hard when the eldest three were tiny and succeeded so my career took off. Had DC4 ten months ago and my career will still be waiting for me when I return in a fortnight. We own a home, DH is a nice husband. I feel ok with my lot really.

You definitely have some valid observations OP but I think you mixed "nature" up with "patriarchy" a couple of times in your post...

Also it's not impossible to "have it all" but only the lucky few can achieve it.

Fortunately I count myself as one of the lucky ones. I'm a writer so I have the luxury of doing what I love from home when my DC are at school. I have full flexibility so my DH also gets to progress in his career but does his share when he's home. I keep waiting for something to go wrong as I can't quite believe how easy we have it compared to some.

Sorry I know that's not helpful but just wanted to say it can be done!

Women can have anything they want if they somehow manage to surround themselves with people who also believe in them having it all.
Exp believed that my needs were secondary to his. Socially, professionally, academically. So I left him. It was hard, esp with two young dc.
Since then, I've got my masters and a job in a specialist field. Met a dp who fully believes in equality and does whatever needs to be done in the house. We live together and so there is no separation of my jobs and his, we just do what needs to be done to make the day go easier, laundry or meals to DIY and bins. We're equal.
It means I get to have the career and the homelife I dreamed of.
Many issues are down to the standards we accept of partners and the liberties they take from us. Remove that and women can have it all.
Having said that, 7 years ago I didn't see a way out of the situation I was in so I know how relentless it can be.

I agree op

Depends on what one means by having it all. There is no way any woman can work full time, and do over time to ensure they progress career wise while still being the main parent for the children by making all the appointments, be on the school board and pta, be on top of the school work as well as extra lessons, cook from scratch and run the house hold. So it becomes a trade off about what is more important. It is a shame that for so many families to have both parents working or not has become less of a choice but more a lose lose situation for what they want, be it the parent who would love nothing more but to stay at home but can't live on one wage, or the parent desperate to get to work but child care costs being too high.

I used to put myself under so much pressure feeling I needed to not only have it all but do it all even once I have kids. It took a lot of talking with DP about how I feel to get to a point where I know what decision would work for us, what I feel my priority is, and to not care about what anyone else thinks because no matter what someone will think it is the wrong choice.

You can have it all though in the sense that you feel you are as happy as you can be and that you are more or less satisfied with how things turned out

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?

I think it's a bit defeatist to conclude that unfortunately since men just don't really fancy taking on their fair share of domestic responsibilities women will have to do it.

*Two people both working and sharing all domestic duties 50/50 still involves a lot of juggling, stress and sacrifice.

I believe child rearing and house keeping are a full time job in itself...*

Well yes, but rather than 50/50 I meant there is the option that the father is the one to become a SAHP/get a lower paid less stressful job/go very part time, surely? As millions of mothers have done. I'm not saying it's the only option or the best, but it has to be on the table at least.

You can have more if you have a partner who is just that, a partner. I just got a promotion while on mat leave and work in a similar field to you, so Parenthood needn't be detrimental to work . DH and I will both be consolidating our working hours when I go back to support child care. DH gets up as early as me in the mornings and does bits and watches the baby while I shower and get dressed, usually makes me a coffee too before he gets himself ready and goes to work, other than the very early days of cluster feeding I make sure I'm in a for state to go about a normal day or you end up feeling gross and trapped at home.

@Ilikethisone
But if it's a human biological drive, then we would all feel it
When you think about how biology impacts the sexes differently, it's really important that we consider this at a class (I e. population) level rather than at an individual level. Biology dictates that men and women will have different traits at a population level, for example men tend to be taller and physically stronger than men. The fact that lots of individual women are taller than lots of individual men doesn't negate this fact nor does it automatically mean that there is something inferior or indeed superior with the individuals that don't follow this trend.

It is important that we recognise and make allowances for biological differences otherwise we can very easily start to penalise people (usually women) for their different biology. It wouldn't be fair for example to start placing supermarket shelves at a height the would be within reach for the majority of men but would not be within the reach for the majority of women. The fact that some women could reach the goods easily doesn't mean that women aren't being discriminated against

If you believe (like me) that women as a class have a biological predisposition towards wanting to be the primary carer then I think society has an obligation to adapt to support and value this. It's important to note that it has never been emphatically proven that women do not have this biological predisposition at a population level and there is a trend that can be observed throughout history and across animal species that would suggest that women are much more likely to adopt the role of primary carer than their male counterparts. I also strongly believe the fact that this role is now seen as inferior and a source of repression has led to many women actively looking to disregard this role and fight any biological drive they may have to stay at home with their children as they know the penalty that will be applied from making such a decision.

From a previous post - why on earth would you eat your child's potato skin as your dinner? And not cook two potatoes? But, I had pre eclampsia so taking my BP tablets (with meals) was imperative. Had to weigh up 'baby crying while I eat' against 'risk of stroke while looking after baby'.

Bumpity has it right. Like it or not some women are forced to be the carer due to recovering from childbirth, breastfeeding etc. Some choose to. We've been led to believe the SAHM role is inferior somehow. By who though?

I have no understanding of this bizarre concept I read on here of women not going to the toilet alone for years and struggling to eat food and Ive raised two kids (both teens now).

No need to be a mummy martyr.

I’ve also never found being a parent to have a detrimental effect on my career. But my career mattered to me as much as parenting, I picked a husband who does his share, and he’s the only person I roll on the floor half naked with!

I’ve obviously missed out on the class level nurture gene!

SignedUpJust4This
Capitalism

You can have it all if you choose a partner that shares everything
Ok the first bit breastfeeding etc,recovering from the birthday,tricky to work but after that
Lots of women in my experience turn into 50s housewives
Fine if that's what you want but not for me
My DH and I share it all and both have progressed well in our careers

It seems to me that one can’t generalise and each person’s situation differs. I for example had to leave a job that was going nowhere, then a year later got,pregnant with DS. I always knew I’d want to work so I changed fields radically and ended up (I’m retired now) in a role that was far more mentally stimulating and also far better paid and far more high status (which was fun). So,it was having DS that meant I could have it all

There is no way any woman can work full time, and do over time to ensure they progress career wise while still being the main parent for the children by making all the appointments, be on the school board and pta, be on top of the school work as well as extra lessons, cook from scratch and run the house hold.

I agree. However, if a woman works full time she shoildnt be the 'main' parent. It should be shared. I manage most of the stuff on that list. I wouldn't want to be on the board of a school, so that's off and dp generally tends to start dinner as he is at home. Who finishes it off depends on what's happening that evening.

If you believe (like me) that women as a class have a biological predisposition towards wanting to be the primary carer then I think society has an obligation to adapt to support and value this. It's important to note that it has never been emphatically proven that womendo nothave this biological predisposition at a population level and there is a trend that can be observed throughout history and across animal species that would suggest that women are much more likely to adopt the role of primary carer than their male counterparts.

I disagree. I think women being the primary carer is a result of how society is set up. Women are condition to be kinder, more caring and conditioned to believe that having kids is the 'correct' thing.

My ds (8) says he wont have kids. No questions it. When my older niece says she wont have them, people are queuing up to tell her she will change her mind, that having kids is the most wonderful thing she can do etc. Maybe she will, maybe she wont. Who knows. Both me and her mother and I stepping and saying 'maybe she will, maybe she wont. Neither is right or wrong'.

The youngest niece gets loads of praise for playing with dolls and pretending to be a 'mummy'. The oldest niece is often told she is too rought for a girl, shouldnt play rugby, needs to learn how to be 'lady like' luckily she has 2 parents who believe she can be whatever she wants. Both of them can be. Sahm, working mum, rugby player, ballerina etc.

Saying something hasnt been disproven, doesnt mean it's been proved. It's like when the nature vs nurture debates come up with regards to criminals. No one can prove it either way, because societal norms are so engrained in us from birth.

I, personally, dont think the role of SAHM, is inferior. It's not for me. I had no biological urge to fight to return to work. Being a sahm, isnt automatic repression. If the other parent is a decent person and parent.

Women in a sahm role can end up repressed. But mainly, that's down to how the main wage earner. Yes, women who are sahm can end up financially screwed in a divorce, have money kept from them, made to feel grateful. But these partners who are cunts would make they feel shit for working too.

Theres a huge amount of women on MN lately who are doing well for themseleves, who are being dragged down and repressed by their cock lodger dp/dh, who does fuck all.

Again, I believe, because of social conditioning. They are made to feel its their job to care. They often dont want to leave because 'he cant cope alone'. So many women regardless of their parental status, get caught up with men children. Or men that have a list of issues as long as the Thames, women often think they can 'fix them' or 'save then'. Or that love will be enough To fix them. Again thats an impact of society.

And being biologically predisposed to being tall isnt the same as a biological urge. Neither, of vary degrees is something we all have. Leaving out, genetic conditions, we all grow. Some just stop sooner than others.

Oh and supermarket shelves are too tall for lots of people, mainly women. Dp is 6ft 4. He is always helping people who are shorter to get something down. Men and women. My best friend is 5ft and struggles sometimes.

We've been led to believe the SAHM role is inferior somehow. By who though?

Other women. Its only on here really but its other women who drag each other down for their choices. As if you are giving up or misusing an earned right by choosing to stay at home and follow your own maternal instinct.

I've only ever been made to feel valued and appreciated as a SAHP by my DH and others in my life.

Can a woman have it all, no. That's how we are made. We need time to recoup after giving birth, we need time and space to feed.

Can we be treated with respect and given the same opportunities as men , yes.

It's tough as we are told we can do whatever we want, but in my experience, you either:

A. Don't earn enough to make going to work sensible
B. Earn too much to be able to stay at home

So, the choice is made for us, either way.

The cost of childcare is the real culprit here.

@Tigger001 I totally agree with that.

I am not a sahp. But, as I posted before, women at work (older women whose kids have grown up) always had a lot to say about how they couldnt have possibly left their children with child minders/ husband/ nanny. Women loved to make out that I couldnt be as good as mother as they were.

Mener in general didnt give a shit. My sil was a sahm for the first 2 years, before my brother did it. She had exactly the same pff other women. Making her feel shit. When she told me, I told her my story and said 'you just need to think 'fuck em' and do what you feel is best for your family'

But it is mainly women that seem to feel the need to judge how other women decide to live theirs lives.

They are all valid choices, sahm, work part time, work full time. Whatever the choice, its valid.

Thanks to everyone who is taking the time to continue this discussion. Very interesting reading the different responses. Of course, I've added some hyperbole in my original post, which some people who don't have a sense of humour seem to be offended by...……….but nonetheless a very varied and considered discussion on the whole.

I'm nearly sixty and have had it all but it has required compromise and an acceptance that children are the responsibility of their parents and childcare is very very expensive.

Had a good first career. Had DS at 34. Went back part-time when he was 4 months and he went to a day nursery. He got bronchiolitis and then wheezed for two years and had multiple ear infections. I gave up work when he was 15 months and stayed at home for 7 years until dd started reception. I loved being at home with the children. It was an absolute privilege and I never ever crawled half naked on the floor eating scraps. We played, leaf kicked, laughed and I ran a ahip shape house. DH wasn't compromised professionally because we had conflicting work demands and his career took off. He was outside the house for about 14 hours a day, often 6 days a week at this stage. My job was the dc.

Went back to work part-time, public sector, school hours so despite pittance pay had no childcare to pay for. Took prof quals which employer funded and 15 years on now have a director level role.

The only women I know who have not compromised their careers have either had very obliging parents, full time nannies or both. There has come a point for most high flying couples we know where something has had to give, often in the teenage years when one parent has needed to wind down the work to keep teenagers on or pull them back on the rails.

I don't think it's a fact that women can't have it all, the stark reality of family life and commitment to children, who most educated, professional women chose to have, means family units have to compromise to ensure everything that needs to happen happens. Women can have everything but they have to organise their time and perhaps understand they can't have it all, all of the time. It is also hugely beneficial that career lifespan for women has been extended to equal that of men. When I went back to work at 43 I'd have stood no chance had their been a statutory retirement age of 60.

Looking back I have had it all. In fact I've had more than DH who despite the glittering career never had the privilege of spending 7 years at home with the children. It was fabulous and actually the keast hard and stressful time of my adult life.

@RJnomore1

I have no understanding of this bizarre concept I read on here of women not going to the toilet alone for years and struggling to eat food and Ive raised two kids (both teens now).

No need to be a mummy martyr.

Completely agree!!

There not their.