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?

I've noticed on MN though, women seem to be getting a bit kinder to each other on this subject. When I joined 15 years ago, there were loads of threads like SAHM V WOHM and folk were brutal. There seems to be more understanding now that things aren't black and white and we all do things differently, to suit ourselves and our families.

Fo my part, I think women are the ones forcing ourselves and each other to Have It All, I don't really think men care one way or another. And having it all means something different to each person, and hopefully that's respected.

ssd it might have got kinder - but I would guess that also your DC have got older and so the choices you made about working or not no longer feel so raw and so you notice the nasty stuff less? I'm always amazed when people say that MN hates SAHM because I feel that I see loads of 'why did you even have kids if you were going to farm them out?' stuff - but of course that's the stuff that gets my back up, so I notice it. I similarly feel like I've seen a lot less bf Vs bottle feeding stuff since I stopped bf-ing and also stopped feeling like stopping was a particularly big deal, but I'm sure that must be my perspective - it no longer stings so I no longer notice!

Nobody can have it all. you can’t stay stat home fulltime and have a exciting career and loads of social life. you have to decide which slice of the cake you want. i returned work after 4/6 months respectively, so i have the big career. I spend all my free time with my kids, so i have no social life whatsoever.
My husband looked after the kids, so his career took a hit, and he has a moderate social life.

NewAccount270219, that's true I maybe don't notice it now as my kids are older. But it's interesting you assumed I felt guilty for working.. I didn't, I stayed at home and always worked round the kids. That was very frowned upon, not having a career or using childcare. But as you say, I probably don't notice those threads now as it's not my life now.

Well, exactly, myself, we've all got finite amounts of time, energy and money and have to decide how to spend it. That's my only top tip really - decide on your priorities for yourself and don't let society/the man/a man decide for you what they are. You may not be happy with things right now but you can plan for improvement down the line.

NewAccount270219, you are right though! I've also not seen any bottle v breast debates in a while as I skim over them now.

NewAccount270219, apologies, ignore the part where I thought you said I'd felt guilty, I was mixing posts up there. You didn't say that.

I think technology has helped a bit as certainly in some lines of work you can do things remotely in a way that wasn't possible before. And women are still taking on most of the mental load but at least it now has a name and is discussed. You also see men doing hands on childcare in a way you didn't when I was a kid (70s). Two of my younger colleagues have returned from ML with their husbands doing ft childcare for a while thanks to shared leave.

There is change, even if it seems glacial.

@NewAccount270219, i totally agree with you.

I have Nigerian female friends who are struggling with Motherhood in the UK. In there Culture, present day. Grandmothers and older female relatives would be involved in child rearing. You'd even take a younger woman in, to see to the children, so they wouldn't interrupt your life.

One friend often says that she would have taken a holiday away from her, few months old baby, by now, if she was back home.

They also go back to work by three months, because there's no reason not to, they have enough people to take their children.

There's no guilt because it's just how it is done.

Other friends from across Africa were left there, while there Parents came and worked in the UK, not seeing them for nearly a year. Again no guilt or blame, on the children's part.

It is social conditioning that drives us.

Not sure my husband's been asked this? I agree with Kathy Burke, a woman's role is to care for herself. I have a thriving career, I'm not making millions but it's a good job with potential to progress, I do school drop off, I finish early one day a week to take them swimming, DH picks up 5.30 so only in childcare 2 hours 4 days a week, I work flexi so never missed a school event (not the same for my DH) and I can work from home up to 4 days a week if I want to do. I am not a martyr, I take back time that is owed to be, I manage the expectations of my bosses, I very, very rarely take work home with me. I will move jobs to get promoted and act up, have done so regularly. I am not a Pinterest mum, we keep our weekends clear to have family time, but you won't see me making home made playdough. My children are not the centre of my universe, we work together as a family identifying ALL our needs and responsibilities. My children's happiness is vital to me, but it's amazing how easy that is the achieve when you all work together recognising each other, not sacrificing yourself, that just breeds entitlement IMO. So I would argue I have "it all" a career, a family, a relationship and time for myself, but I make that time, I don't feel guilty and I don't run myself ragged for anyone. I guess you could say I think like a man, maybe that is the key. I would say I have it better than my DH though, he struggles much more to get work to enable him to get to the school assembly etc, that's a battle he'll have to fight for himself.

Sorry I should I add "all I want" all that matters with having it all, is that you have what you want.

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.

I think you are missing the point. No one wants children in inadequate or detrimental childcare. It doesnt even have to be own child. I dont want any children in that setting.

But it doesnt have to be the womans career that suffers for that. Parents, on the whole want, their children to be safe and happy. Not just women.

There is no proof women have a biological drive to be the primary carer. You keep talling about proof and despite being given it, keep talking about things you have no proof of.

No one leaves their child in poor childcare. If, for whatever reason you cant find good childcare. It's both parents responsibility to figure out a way to fix it.

But, due to social conditioning, its often assume it wont be the man that career is damaged. Pp said earlier that women are often the one in the poorer paid role, so it's not financially viable for the man to reduce hours. We need to look at that, if it's true. Why are women more likely to be in a poorly paid role, before they have kids? As a society we need to look why that is?

If a family decide the best thing for their family is for one to stay at home that's great. If the woman weighs up the pros and cons and is happy to be a sahm. Great. If she wants to maintain her career, great.

Theres absolutely no proof that staying at home produces better outcomes for children. Theres no proof going to work does.

I do believe that women being cast into the role of primary carer, is mainly influrnce by society. Not biology.

Totally agree ilike
The current CC options available are always sneered at in these discussions and the lovely rosy past referred to.
In the 70s from 6 upwards I had to "go out to play" aka be chucked out of the house and told not to come back so that my mother could "have some peace"
No holiday club or after school club just left my own devices whatever the weather.
I got soaked and frozen,bullied by older children but nope not allowed back until 5pm.
This was common place btw.
Currently none of my colleagues have children in 8-10 hours FT CC.

They share care with each parent working compressed hours, early starts/finishes and DC doing a couple of days in CC and being cared for by parents one day per week each .
The children seem to have adapted well and enjoy their "Daddy Day, Granny Day" etc
If you set yourself as the only person who can care adequately for your child then this isnt going to work obviously !
The other thing Im seeing is the age gap between DC getting wider .
When I had mine it was spot on 2 years now 3/4 years seems more common.

I dont think anyone can 'have it all', male or female. You have to choose how you balance your life. I earn less than I used to since having dc, but the partial sacrifice in career means I spend more time with my children. I still have a lot less time with my children than a stay at home parent though.

I dont think you can expect to have a really high flying career and also spend a lot of time with dc, in general. I dont think you can expect to take years out to look after children and then jump back into a high flying job, you may have to build back up.

So yes, you cant really 'have it all' but you can choose what you do want.

@Sockworkshop my parents were born in 1955 and they describe very similar situations in the 60s. For me dad he was about 5.

He grew up in a rural village near the coast. He would be gone all day. He actually enjoyed it, as a kid, but is a bit horrified by it now. Unfortunately, 2 friends dies as kids, through drowning from going in the sea.

That's not my ideal either. I do agree that the view that being a sahm in days gone by meant kids were cared for adequately isnt not always accurate.

For both mum and dad this was the norm for all their friends. In the 80s it was my norm too. Though I was expected to be back for lunch and didnt leave the street as we lived in a city.

I was just about to attain a permanent contract after months of temping when I found out I was pregnant. Once my workplace discovered I was pregnant they found menial excuses to redact the offer for permanent placement and the next day I had a call from the agency in charge of my temp contract advising the company were no longer in need of me and then cut contact with me. So I agree that the western world is still geared towards pregnancy being an inconvenience for the workplace. That’s my experience any way.

Because of this and subsequently finding out I was pregnant with twins my DH suggested I be a SAHM for both financial reasons (I didn’t earn much and to start another job mid pregnancy was unlikely at best, childcare would cost us more than I could earn) so I did. I love the time I have with my twins but I know that when the time comes for me to get back into work I’m going to have to start at the bottom again - despite my qualifications and years of experience. DH has taken the financial responsibility and stats in a job he hates at an increasing intensity but he bites his lip and carries on because it’s for the betterment of our family. He would love to be a SAHD but admits he wouldn’t be able to handle doing it FT - we are toying with the idea of me looking for work at the level I can comfortably perform to and then he can take the chance to leave the job he dislikes so much and really think about what he wants to do moving forward. But his reticence (due to his worry that he couldn’t care for our twin toddlers as well as I can) is holding him back from this decision.

So I can’t ‘have it all’ in the career/mum sense at the moment, but I’m happy with my lot and DH will always say that despite his hatred of his job (and his prospects have been cut back since he became a parent at his workplace, he went from being able to manage, train and mentor colleagues to menial tasks - he has challenged this but his managers don’t seem to care) the best part of his day is getting home and seeing us. So I suppose neither can have it all, but we have a lot to be happy for so that’s our guiding force.

@NewAccount270219
Firstly, I'm not too sure what you think in arguing with you about? I accept you know much more than me about how previous generations of women have raised their children and I have never claimed that it was the historic norm for women to raise children and provide no further contribution to the household.

My point is that I believe that women (as a class) are more child centric than men and therefore have a greater propensity towards wanting to be the primary caregiver for their child. This doesn't necessarily mean that they have a desire to do all of the caring but I think that they are the ones that will tend to sacrifice their other wants and needs (such as having a career) if they believe it benefits their child. Economic necessity and cultural norms will all play a part in shaping how a biological urge manifests itself as well as what alternatives are available. I think there is a difference between the type of childcare you are referring to that has existed historically and the pressure on women now to place their children in modern childcare settings for 50+ hours a week in order to sustain two FT careers.

The fact that mothers have taken different approaches to raising their children throughout history doesn't disprove the existence of a biological urge. That's like looking at current breastfeeding statistics, observing that a minority of mothers are breastfeeding beyond the initial stages and suggesting that this is proof that mothers don't have a biological urge to breastfeed their young anymore when in fact the vast majority of women express a desire to breastfeed before they give birth.

I am interested on your view of whether you think men and women are programmed differently biologically when it comes to caring for children and if not, are there any examples you are aware of throughout history or in different cultures where the men do the majority of even an equal share of the childcare?

@Ilikethisone
There is no proof women have a biological drive to be the primary carer. You keep talling about proof and despite being given it, keep talking about things you have no proof of
Could you please refer me to the "proof" that I have been given? The fact women have not exclusively cared for their children in the past is absolutely not proof that women do not have a biological urge to be primary carers. The difference between you and I is that I openly acknowledge that this is an area of research that is still ongoing and no definitive proof or answer has been found yet despite it being an area that has been highly studied. A quick Google can provide access to all sorts of peer reviewed papers and studies on this issue if you are interested in the work that's already been done and the different theories that exist.

For what it's worth, I think we have the same aim of achieving real equality for men and women. For me though this starts in acknowledging the biological differences between the sexes and ensuring that women aren't penalised for their different biology and the different choices they therefore might make as a result of this biology. Why must a woman be punished so harshly career wise for taking a few years out to focus on her children? Why is the norm always assumed to be the male model that one should be a breadwinner first and a parent second otherwise they are not serious about their career?

The fact women have not exclusively cared for their children in the past is absolutely not proof that women do not have a biological urge to be primary carers. The difference between you and I is that I openly acknowledge that this is an area of research that is still ongoing and no definitive proof or answer has been found yet despite it being an area that has been highly studied.

Not really sure I really understand what it is you are getting at.

I have said all along that you keep saying theres no proof, about opposing points. Yet have no proof of your point. I have said several times, that I believe it's more social than biological.

I have said earlier in the thread it's the nature vs nurture debate that hasnt been proved either way.

But what we do know is that child care has been used for centuries
That women staying at home and only look after their own children and their own house is a fairly modern concept.

The fact that throughout human history children have been cared for by others, and the other have been paid or paid in kind. Suggests its not a biological state it's a down to society.

Again, this is my opinion. You have no proof otherwise. It being a society expectation does have more evidence, to suggest that women havent been ignoring their biological urges for thousands of years.

Why must a woman be punished so harshly career wise for taking a few years out to focus on her children? Why is the norm always assumed to be the male model that one should be a breadwinner first and a parent second otherwise they are not serious about their career?

Anyone taking years out of their career will fall behind. It's not punishment. It's a natural consequence of the choice to not work. It impossible to take years out of the workplace and return exactly where you left off, when you are competing for jobs with people who have similar but more recent experience.

I know men who have gone travelling g for years and struggled the same. Most workplaces are fast moving and business change all the time. It's very difficult, to just jump back in after years out.

What's the alternative? Give the job to someone whose experience was 5 years ago and can not demonstrated that they are up to speed in the industry, over someone who can who know new technology used, new regulation etc.

The reason men are seen as bread winner first and parents second is because society has it set up as that. Women stayed at hone and did the child rearing, didnt have bank account or any real power. Women were there to make their husbands lives comfortable and make sure they could have kids.

And because people keep trying to convince women that biologically, they are programmed to be the primary carer. If women arent, people try and make them feel guilty or bad for not taking their place in the home and deferring to their husbands.

While we keep saying women are biological more inclined to be a primary carer and out their needs first, you are suggesting that fathers cant.

The whole biology line places father in the role of secondary parent. Not equal parent