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?

Yes men and women are different. But the society we live in and want to live wants to make it as equal as possible. It's never going to be equal, men on the whole will always be stronger for example.

But we want it to as equal as possible. Therefore saying, for women it's a biological urge to be the main carer, you are immediately creating inequality in the home, work and society.

It's not proven its biological urge. In my opinion is a social conditioning.

As pp said, there is little evidence women did stay home and just concentrate on sweeping the mud hut and looking after children, hoing further and further back through history. Small children has to stay with mothers until weaned for obvious reasons. Its practical, rather than a biological urge some women have.

As pp pointed out lots of sahms, dont want to be, ideally. They feel because of cost of child care, they have to be. Rather than because they have the urge.

If lots of a species do not have the same urge, it's not a biological one programmed into us.

@NewAccount270219
You cannot possibly prove a negative
Apologies if my post was worded badly. I basically meant that there is no definitive answer as to what drives the sexes to have observably different psychological characteristics. For example men as a class tend to have more aggressive tendencies whilst women tend to have more caring tendencies. As I mentioned upthread, I'm sure there are other elements involved but I think it's odd to be so quick to assume that biology doesn't play a big role in creating these differences when there is no proven alternative.

And women are more likely to be primary carers, but what that looks like and whether it precludes working outside the home is not culturally universal
I agree with your point but I suppose my view is that the individualistic, capitalist society we live in means that many women who have a drive to be the primary carer for their child do not have the networks and options available to them to adopt this role and work outside the home in the way they would like to. I don't necessarily think that women's biological urge means that they have an overwhelmingy desire to do absolutely all the care for their child themselves, but I do think women are more likely to place a greater emphasis on their child's well-being and their quality of care. I think this is why lots of women look to reduce their hours or stay at home because they genuinely believe this is in their child's interest.

Depends what you judge as "having it all"! In my opinion I "have it all" but my view of it may be very different to your view of it.

I grew up with ‘having it all’ taught as being able to have children, be present in their lives but also not to compromise on my career. I suppose also I, very naively pre-kids, thought having it all also meant being able to have a great marriage, nice house, clean house, being able to exercise, home cooked meals. All while having the great career and spending loads of time with my kids.

I also think having it all is much more possible in some careers than others. I chose healthcare. Not exactly known for its family friendly hours.

Needless to say I have not managed all of that.

@Sockworkshop
But we want it to as equal as possible. Therefore saying, for women it's a biological urge to be the main carer, you are immediately creating inequality in the home, work and society
No, acknowledging a potential difference in biology does not create inequality. It would be different if it had been definitively proven that women's current propensity towards adopting the role of primary caregiver was driven by socialisation but this is not the case. So at the moment we are in the situation where women as a class tend to adopt this role and we don't really know why. We can choose to assume that it's all down to socialisation and therefore seek to make no adaptions to society to support this difference and look to eradicate it or we can instead assume that maybe biology does play a role and therefore seeking to eradicate this difference is doing women as a class a disservice and will ultimately detriment them as you are asking them to deny a key trait of their sex. I don't understand why you would adopt the former approach when there is no real evidence to support it. Surely until we know otherwise it makes sense to try and achieve equality through supporting women's choices and looking to adapt society to make sure they aren't penalised for this.

As pp said, there is little evidence women did stay home and just concentrate on sweeping the mud hut and looking after children, hoing further and further back through history. Small children has to stay with mothers until weaned for obvious reasons. Its practical, rather than a biological urge some women have
How many societies have a model of raising children that hasn't been dominated by women? How many modern day women have the option of leaving their children with fellow tribes women or even family members? How many historic tribes or species used the equivalent of modern day formal childcare?

Women have almost exclusively been the main caregivers to children even if the mother could rely on other women within their family/tribe to provide care for their children. We don't live as tribes anymore and our support networks tend to be smaller and more dispersed. A classic case where I believe our biology (women being the primary caregivers) has been compounded by society to create the current situation where lots of women feel that they have to sacrifice their careers as they don't have the support options that are available in other cultures or were available in other generations.

For example men as a classtendto have more aggressive tendencies whilst womentendto have more caring tendencies. As I mentioned upthread, I'm sure there are other elements involved but I think it's odd to be so quick to assume that biology doesn't play a big role in creating these differences when there is no proven alternative.

Biology plays a tiny role in why men are more violent. They cause so much damage when violent because of biology. Its not biological to beat your partner or go out start a fight with someone who isnt a threat. Yet plenty of men and some women do it.

Boys will be boys, still gets trotted out.

I think this is why lots of women look to reduce their hours or stay at home because they genuinely believe this is in their child's interest.

That contradicts what you say about it being a biological need. If they stay at home through biological need, they are doing so because it satisfys their need. Not because it's best for the child.

Imo, the majority of parents, male and female, want what's best for their children. However, society evolved in a way that men did what's best by working outside the home and providing the money and women take care of the kids and the house. That's the roles society has placed on them. That's not biological. Sahm have always been the preserve of the rich. Of you were poor, the man may work and the women would also do work outside the home to provide for the kids.

I mean, come on, kids went to work very young until (biologically speaking) recently.

even if the mother could rely on other women within their family/tribe to provide care for their children. We don't live as tribes anymore and our support networks tend to be smaller and more dispersed.

And the support network is wide and includes paid child care.

If it's a biological need then it wouldnt have happened where women let others look after their child while, they worked.

How many modern day women have the option of leaving their children with fellow tribes women or even family members? How many historic tribes or species used the equivalent of modern day formal childcare?

I think you have a very specific idea of what a 'tribe' looks like (and how close knit it is), which again is true for some but not many communities. Sorry to bang on about it but if you read the account of the Beng people I posted upthread (it really is fascinating) then you'll see that they adopt a system that is much less consistent than any UK nursery would use, in terms of the number and pattern of carers used, and how well the babies are expected to get to know them - babies might be passed to someone new every hour throughout the day. They actively prize a baby who will 'go to anyone', seeing it as a mark not (as we do) of poor attachment, but of a mother who has done well to have an independent baby (and they are talking about infants, well below one).

I first encountered this in a book I'd really recommend, by the way, 'A World of Babies' (the author of that piece I posted is one of the two editors). It's a cross-cultural comparison of baby rearing in eight cultures and I found it one of the most reassuring books I've ever read on raising babies because the variations it describes are so massive that a) it makes you realise how much of what you think is 'a natural thing that everyone does/feels about a baby' is cultural (eg I had no idea how massively cultural it is whether or not babies crawl - I thought it was a natural stage that you could neither encourage nor discourage, which is completely untrue) and b) how massive human varieties in childrearing are, and therefore how incredibly trivial the differences that UK mothers tear each other apart over are - on a global scale, my parenting is actually incredibly similar to most other UK women, regardless of whether I work, breastfeed, sleep train or whatever

@Ilikethisone
Biology plays a tiny role in why men are more violent
Again, this has not been emphatically proven and there is plenty of evidence that men as a class have a predisposition towards aggression and biology may well play a large role in this. It's important to note that whilst biology may provide some of the explanation as to why men tend to be more aggressive, it absolutely does not excuse incidents of violence such as the ones you allude to. In fact if we understand what makes us tick and how biology shapes us then it's the first step towards managing and reducing undesirable behaviour.

That contradicts what you say about it being a biological need. If they stay at home through biological need, they are doing so because it satisfys their need. Not because it's best for the child
No, because satisfying a biological urge is different than satisfying one's own wants and needs. Many mothers are biologically driven to place their child's wants and needs above their own. In the most extreme examples, it is not uncommon for mothers to sacrifice their lives to save their children. This is observable in animals as well as humans.

And the support network is wide and includes paid child care
Many people (including myself) would not count paid childcare as part of a support network. It's a paid service and one that many people are happy to use but it isn't comparable to traditional forms of "childcare" that humans have used for centuries.

I haven't read the whole thread but I suspect if your employer had treated you decently during and after your first pregnancy you might feel rather differently.

'Having it all' is such a useless concept. Everyone makes tradeoffs. Most people don't or can't think long term. There is a lot of structural sexism in the UK and I wasn't really aware of it till I had my DC. I doubt I'm the only one.

YANBU anyway for even framing the conversation in those terms. Parenting is not a zero-sum game.

I agree with you 100% OP. I also have 2 kids. I also have 2 high powered jobs. I am leaving my 2 jobs and getting 1 part time job instead simply because I also realise you can't have it all. I can't be a good wife, mum and worker, and also look after myself etc... It's all toooo much. Kids come first, husband second, me third and job fourth.when I was young, so for and childless, job came first, me second and nothing else featured really.

I like life the best now and can't wait to change to my 1, part time post very soon ! Hopefully I'll start to feel human again soon!

Many people (including myself) would not count paid childcare as part of a support network. It's a paid service and one that many people are happy to use but it isn't comparable to traditional forms of "childcare" that humans have used for centuries.

But that's entirely a cultural attitude. Almost all childcare undertaken by non-immediate family across the world (and a lot undertaken by immediate family) is transactional - it might not be cash changing hands (though it might be) but it isn't 'free' either, it's a mutually beneficial arrangement. Your idea that there is something inherently worse about childcare you pay for is a socialised one. And of course humans have been using paid childcare for centuries - what do you think Juliet's Nurse did? Or did you think she did it for free?

And of course humans have been using paid childcare for centuries - what do you think Juliet's Nurse did? Or did you think she did it for free?

Of course they have and what hasn't changed is that those providing the care are women. Walk into any nursery and I bet you will find the majority of hands on staff are women. Certainly of the four in my local area there was only one male member of staff when I went to look around.

@Bumpitybumper the issue is you keep saying things arent proven.

Then saying women have this biological need. That's not proven either.

Besides which, you are forgetting that working parents also put their children first.

That's not something exclusive to men or women. It exclusive to decent parents.

Many people (including myself) would not count paid childcare as part of a support network. It's a paid service and one that many people are happy to use but it isn't comparable to traditional forms of "childcare" that humans have used for centuries.

I think you are mistaken. Childcare has always been paid for. Back way when, the women that looked after the kids, or grandparents were looked after. They would be fed, helped with things they couldnt do. That's how the villagecraised the children. People in the village woildnt have done it if it meant they went without.

Its work that usually fell to women or(because society puts them in that role) or perhaps grandparents or other elders who werent fit enough to do manual work.

The other thing, is that if you have this urge to stay home and it works for you family, do it.

That to me is 'having everything'. Because you have what you want. Working or staying at home, both choices come with consquences. Working means I am busier than I would be if I was at home. I am good with that.

So back to the pp. I believe you can have everything. Depending on your view. Or at least most people can.

I have everything I want. It's different to some people.

If you want a career and kids. You need to partner who is an equal parent, equal in responsibility and equal in the home.

If you want the career and have the urge to be the main carer, you either have to accept you cant be the main carer, or run yourself into the ground.

@HolidayStartsMonday
You should be wary of your list of importance

That will come back and haunt you one day.

@NewAccount270219
I don't think it's a cultural issue to think that paid for childcare doesn't form part of my support network. I don't count Sainsbury's or the plumber as part of my support network for similar reasons, in that they would withdraw their (valuable) service if I stopped paying them.

Paid for or transactional childcare may have existed for a long time, but it has absolutely not existed in the form that many modern day parents are expected to use if they both want to work FT. It has not been the norm to leave children for 8-10 hours, 5 days a week in a formal, quite often reasonably institutionalised childcare setting and many women instinctively feel that doing this isn't in the best interests of their child. I have never said that women have the biologically urge to provide all the care for their child but I do think they are biologically driven to be their child's primary carer in that they will often be the one that is most invested in their child's well-being and be the one that is most likely to sacrifice their own ambition, wants and needs to benefit their child. If they think that the childcare options available to them are inadequate or detrimental to their child then they will often by the ones to sacrifice their careers to reduce the amount of time their children spend in childcare.

Honestly I think times are changing. Because it used to be common for mums to stop work or take a huge step back, this often enabled dads to continue working the way they did pre kids - long hours, v committed, often putting employer before all else.

Both DH and I have v well paid senior roles, I in a large corporate, him in a small (often old fashioned) male dominated private co. In both cases The younger men all have working wives and the glut of senior men coming through expect flexibility, have responsibilities at home and so simply don't do long office hours or avoidable travel. DH agreed to a 2 week work trip, and after it kicked off because it was clear when he was there that it could have been done in a short week, minimising the impact on my job through juggling our childcare.

It's getting easier and I love that DH is around more with our kids than my fathee was but with our having sacrificed his career.

Nb we use childcare but I've been able to drop to 4 days a week, wfh sometimes and flex my hours to go in early & leave early. It hasn't compromised my job, and other dads and mums in my team do similar to suit their families.

I'm a SAHM and I feel like I have it all.
That said I left my career years ago to pursue surfing and switched to working unskilled manual work
I can jump back into that anytime

Try to make peace with where you are now

In all honesty, for the majority of us, we cant have it all. I probably come about as close as it gets - I work four days per week in my job as a lawyer in the civil service, which I love, i have a family friendly manager and so I get to work flexible hours, I'm always away on time to do the nursery run. I get to spend three days per week with her. Objectively, life is good. But even so....I missed my daughters first steps. The first time she went to the park and played on a slide was with nursery staff, not me. At 18 months old, shes still fed to sleep because the attempted sleep training doesnt work, so I have to be home for her bedtime every night (she wont take a bottle) and I therefore have no social life, i have no idea how long it will be before I get to have a life again, and I feel pretty lonely and isolated and my generally lovely husband doesnt really understand or empathise with this. Work wise, my job is safe and secure, but there are days when I've had a bad night or a few too many 5-5.30am wake ups recently and I feel so tired that I shouldn't be trusted to choose my own sandwiches, let alone be responsible for complex legal decision making.

Others, I am aware, have it worse than this. Sidelined at work, or having to work longer hours and thus missing out on more with their children. So I know I'm one of the lucky ones. But the fact that this, as non-ideal as it is, is as good as it gets, tells me the whole have it all thing is a myth.

I "have it all"

By day I'm a SAHM to two preschoolers. By evening I have a successful business.

The truth is, I have no balance. I'm exhausted, resentful and just angry about life.

I agree with much of that. I remember my mum saying something similar to your old lady about it being impossible to have or do everything ie children, career, travel etc.

If you want to go along with nature and biology then the woman is primed to be the primary carer. We grow the baby within us and provide its food for the first few months . If you believe that all this gives your baby the best start then obviously it has to be the woman who gives up work and career for a while. To carry on a career the woman is the one to fight that bond or feel she isn’t nurturing the child as she has to hand baby over to a nursery or other carers.

I think the main problem today is women are expected to do it all whether they chose to or not. Reading posts on this site shows that. There seems little value in staying home with children and an expectation everyone should go back to work ASAP to support themselves even though that is tough going with broken sleep and the relentless slog of young children after a day at work.

How many mums truly have careers that will move on so fast they can’t take a year or two away and how many are just going into normal day to day jobs that have no progression just because they can’t manage without the money and feel pressured to do so by society?

I haven’t got it all. I ended up a single parent that had a much greater impact on what I can and can’t do career wise but my children are older and there is still time to play catch up now with training and education. Life keeps going whether we have it all or not.

bumpity I think I'm done arguing with you, because I keep providing actual anthropological research (and I can do historical too - I'm a historian and I promise you that it is not the historical norm for childcare for anything other than a neonate to be a woman's only economic contribution to the household. In Tudor England they used to leave very young children unattended much more often than we would consider acceptable - had they lost leave of their biological urges in the sixteenth century but we've found them again?) and examples and you keep countering with your clearly vague idea of 'how things were done in the past' which is more of a nostalgic idea than a historical reality. Lots of people share your idea that they must do things 'differently' and 'right" 'in the tribes' (the 'noble savage' idea of motherhood) but it's pretty much a fantasy that ignores the incredible diversity of real historical and global practice.