To think women can't have it all?

[0Cripes]

I'm pregnant with DC3 and due soon. My boss recently announced he was leaving at the end of this month on a 9 month secondment. His role is a natural progression for me and he has been teeing me up for it for 7 years. However, someone will backfill his role and gain experience for 9 months that I won't have a chance to get, therefore when the permanent position comes up (my boss has no intention to return) I'll be at a disadvantage.
If I wasn't going on mat leave I would stand a very good chance getting this role. I am annoyed as I feel I'm now at a disadvantage and my career is suffering because I've chosen to have a child. I appreciate that I still have the opportunity to apply but I'm pretty sure I won't get it knowing I'll be absent for 6 months of it!
I know the timings are nobodies fault but AIBU to be annoyed at this and think it's so hard for women to have kids and a successful career?

If I wasn't going on mat leave I would stand a very good chance getting this role. I am annoyed as I feel I'm now at a disadvantage and my career is suffering because I've chosen to have a child. I appreciate that I still have the opportunity to apply but I'm pretty sure I won't get it knowing I'll be absent for 6 months of it!

Your career isn't suffering because you've chosen to have a child.

You may not get a promotion because you will not be at work for several months at a time when the position needs to be filled. That would be the same if you took time off to travel or for medical reasons. You can't expect them to put the position on hold until you decide to return to work, can you?

Also, as others have pointed out, you don't have to take 9 months off. That is your choice. Your employers aren't obliged to work around your family choices.

@AlexaShutUp

While in theory DH has more flexibility than I do (an unlimited holiday time policy) the attitude when he requests time to take care of the DC is "can't your wife take care of that?" whereas if I ask, I get somewhat more understanding.

So what do they say when he explains that, no, his wife cannot do that because he is an equal parent who needs to share the responsibility for his children?

I'm sorry, but if men really wanted to work flexibly enough to take on their fair share, then they would make it happen. There are very few jobs in which this genuinely isn't possible. Perhaps your dh isn't pushing back against his employer's sexist approach too hard because, deep down, he believes that the children are primarily your responsibility? And you seem willing to accept that, so perhaps you agree?

It's funny how the men who are genuinely committed to challenging sexism and sharing the responsibility always seem to manage to negotiate with their employers successfully.

Good points here, my DH had to assert himself and marginally inconvenience a few clients so he could shift around his diary to be there reliably for childcare reasons - this was during covid when wraparound wasn’t on and I was doing 10 hour shifts. Magically he managed to do this when it was an absolute necessity, the world didn’t end and his work didn’t think any the less of him (he’s a team player, already goes above and beyond but can be a bit of a people pleaser). I’m hoping this will be a lesson learned for the future for him. We have equal levels of responsibility at work and my team is smaller so it is actually more inconvenient for my employer than his if the kids need something. Weird the perception that it’s always mums job because men’s work is automatically more important.

Where's your partner in all this? People can't have it all, but no reason that should inevitably fall on the woman. Can your partner take parental leave and you go back to work?

Honestly finding these comments suggesting you return after a matter of weeks completely bizarre. Are they being facetious? Have any of these posters had children??

The first page google brought up on the subject told me that a quarter of American women return to work within two weeks of having a baby. I'm not commenting on the desirability of this, just pointing out that it's not far-fetched, it is being done by millions.

Sorry, but I don't really buy this. There are very few jobs in which people really couldn't take time out to deal with family emergencies. It's simply that many men don't feel the need

A child with a cut knee or a cough at school isn’t an emergency though. Nor is a child with chicken pox who has to stay off school for a fortnight.

I’m sure men would ask for flexibility if there was a life threatening situation. But not for situations the lower-earning partner has under control, like unexpected childcare or a child under the weather but not seriously ill.

Asking for flexibility in some jobs causes mayhem and repercussions; imagine a surgeon cancelling his theatre list for the day because his son has a cold and his wife doesn’t want to take another day off. Or a project manager who abandons his team before a crucial deadline because he needs to pick his child up early. Being reliable and responsible is a valued trait in employees.

If as a family you depend mostly (or solely) on the career of one person, wouldn’t the lesser earning partner pull out all the stops to ensure his/her partner isn’t disturbed at work?

Perhaps your dh isn't pushing back against his employer's sexist approach too hard because, deep down, he believes that the children are primarily your responsibility?

Or he’s been conditioned by society to believe his responsibility is to provide for his family, so he focuses on his career in able to progress as breadwinner?

I have two kids and both times I was back at full time work when they were two weeks old. Husband was the SAHP as I earn more than him.

@Randomlondoner it is illegal in the UK to return to work within 14 days of giving birth, for a start.

I think it helps to earn as much or more than your partner. If you contribute the same then it is more logical to both manage the risk of annoying your employer. I think the pity is how backwards the U.K. is at this…

@TrippingFlip.
Of course there is a choice as to when the baby comes along. Maybe not always exact but pretty much in nine months time.
OP , When I was caring for children the first baby that I ever took came to me when they were 3/4 months old.
I took one when they were 5 months, one at nine months. I also took one baby at the age of eight weeks, the last baby i took came to me when they were 4 weeks old. Mum had to return to work.
So if you want this job can't DP arrange for some paternity leave ?

@StrangeToSee

Sorry, but I don't really buy this. There are very few jobs in which people really couldn't take time out to deal with family emergencies. It's simply that many men don't feel the need

A child with a cut knee or a cough at school isn’t an emergency though. Nor is a child with chicken pox who has to stay off school for a fortnight.

I’m sure men would ask for flexibility if there was a life threatening situation. But not for situations the lower-earning partner has under control, like unexpected childcare or a child under the weather but not seriously ill.

Asking for flexibility in some jobs causes mayhem and repercussions; imagine a surgeon cancelling his theatre list for the day because his son has a cold and his wife doesn’t want to take another day off. Or a project manager who abandons his team before a crucial deadline because he needs to pick his child up early. Being reliable and responsible is a valued trait in employees.

If as a family you depend mostly (or solely) on the career of one person, wouldn’t the lesser earning partner pull out all the stops to ensure his/her partner isn’t disturbed at work?

A surgeon is probably one of the very few jobs where it really would be difficult to be flexible but then again, if the surgeon's wife is also a surgeon, they would still have to find a way of managing things between them. Or they would have to buy in additional support.

The reality is, most people aren't surgeons and most people's jobs could be more flexible. If a manager leaving early one afternoon to collect an injured child causes so much mayhem, I'd argue that they're managing things very poorly. Life happens, people get sick sometimes and unexpected things come up. There should be enough resilience in systems to cope with this... and usually there is.

In fact, many women do manage to deliver in senior roles without a lower earning partner to pick up the slack at home. Men with partners in high earning roles manage to do the same. Reliability and responsibility are important, yes, but employers need to recognise that people at all levels in an organisation will have family responsibilities and sometimes they will need to take priority. We will never achieve real equality in the workplace until this understanding is there.

We have always relied mainly on my income as a family, but it would never have occurred to me to expect DH to pick up all of the slack, and it wouldn't have been fair to his employer either. I wanted to do my fair share and I wanted to be a hands on parent, so yes, I did take time off for minor illnesses etc. That's part of being a parent. It didn't stop me from doing a cracking good job, nor did it get in the way of my career progression or my ability to provide for my family.

A surgeon is probably one of the very few jobs where it really would be difficult to be flexible but then again, if the surgeon's wife is also a surgeon, they would still have to find a way of managing things between them. Or they would have to buy in additional support.

A surgeon is just one example of someone in a high earning job with a lot of responsibility, who needs to be on site to do that job. Same goes for any hospital doctor, project manager, pilot, military officer… the list goes on. Many careers are not compatible with raising kids unless you have
a) a partner who is a SAHP or fits their work around the family or
b) childcare in the form of a live in nanny or relative.

To progress in many careers you simply can’t regularly request flexible hours, short notice days off, leave early, take holidays that sync with school etc. To get promoted and be at the top of your game you need to dedicate time to work. Because there are other people keen to get the promotions who don’t have kids, or have kids and a SAHP to cover all the holidays, half terms, inset days, kids being off sick from school etc.

It’s a shame there aren’t more high-earning women. But the brutal reality is each pregnancy sets you back in your career (especially if you want a long mat leave) so it tends to be the man who gets ahead career wise while his wife is caring for the baby.

I know a married couple who are both consultants (different fields but full time). They both love their jobs. They have 2 kids and a nanny, and often talk about how nice it would be to see more of their kids.

Take the role now.
I had similar, applied for promotion while pregnant. Got it, then two months later had the baby (12 week maternity leave) and then went right back to the new job.

Take the role now.

It's not hers to 'take'.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree @StrangeToSee. The fact is, I know plenty of people in some of the jobs that you've mentioned as well as other comparable roles who have managed to progress extremely well in their careers without the support of a low earning partner or SAHP to carry the load at home. Men and women who are ambitious, successful and serious about their careers, who also want to play an active role in family life and who respect that their partners might also want to progress. Where there is a will, there is a way. I speak from my own experience.

As the CEO of a medium sized organisation, I have been promoted over plenty of men who have SAHPs picking up the slack at home. Men who wouldn't dream of asking for time off because they're far too busy and important. The truth is, taking time off to look after a poorly child or working flexible hours so that I could do the school run certainly made my life a little more complicated at times, but it did not get in the way of my progression because I was good at what I did and my employers valued my contributions enough to accommodate me. And I would do exactly the same with members of my team, regardless of whether staff are male or female.

I have been managing staff for 25 years now, and I've long since lost count of the number of women who have asked to work flexibly around their children. However, I could probably count the number of men who have asked for this on one hand. On one occasion, I even heard an employee on the phone to his wife telling her that he couldn't possibly leave early to pick up their child because of the impact it would have on his team. Oh no, I said in the background, we'll find a way of working around it if you need to go. He continued to insist that his wife did it, and said when he put the phone down that it was fine, it was better for her to take the time off. I guess a lot of men just don't see it as their problem, and if they have got wives who are happy to facilitate them opting out, then why would they?

@IcedPurple

Take the role now.

It's not hers to 'take'.

She said her boss offered her to have it by secondment when he leaves next month? So yes, she can take it. She’s just thinking she shouldn’t because she is due soon.

It is amazing how DH has suddenly found his job can be flexible after years of telling me he was too busy and important. To be fair he wasn’t a completely unreformed dinosaur but just expected that as I was the part-time/lower earner, I should pick up the slack. So my career always had that additional handbrake on it. When we had DS we were both senior in-house lawyers - within that first year he became a GC. My career grumbled along for 6 years and he had the benefit of a part-time wife at home as we negotiated juggling work & home.
Now I am a GC too so (a) he can’t pull the “my career is more important” card and (b) he can’t claim the job isn’t flexible - because we do the same job and I’ve insisted on flexibility.

IMO Working mothers tend to try to build in flexibility - in my experience men will tend not to challenge the cultural norm at the office unless they are forced to (as in they don’t have a partner who is part torn or a SAhM).

She said her boss offered her to have it by secondment when he leaves next month?

Did she say that?

Are you sure?

Part time not part torn 😱
And yes to everything you say @AlexaShutUp

I try to be consistent and outspoken about it too. When I am instructing external counsel I’m mindful that they have e commitments outside work too and try to consult with them on reasonable deadline so they’re not up all night working for no reason. I’ve seen —men— people brief work out at 5pm for 9am the next day for no other reason than “I’m paying them, and when I was in private practice I had to do it”. It’s not hard to not be a dick.

@PlanDeRaccordement has op name changed because I can't see that. She say he has been teeing her up for the role. But hasn't offered her the secondment outright.

Its a secondment where she won't be in work. So even if she tales it and does it for a few weeks, then goes on mat leave, they will need to get someone to fill for her. That person will get the majority of the exeprience. Not op. Which is her concern.

Unless op chooses a very short mat leave and the person filling in for her only does it for the short time she is off.

@Hekatestorch
No, op hasn’t changed her name, I read same as you but everywhere I have worked, the manager picks who from their subordinates is seconded to fill their position while their management advertise and hire the permanent position. And since she said he’s being teeing her up for 7 yrs to take that secondment, and I presumed he’s the decision maker as to who fills that secondment, I read that it is hers for the taking. And if I were her I’d take it and not worry about the maternity leave. Some experience in that role is better than none, and if she does a great job before the baby comes, they could miss her and want her for it on permanent basis on her return.

@0Cripes can I just say - put your hand up for it and don’t think about taking a 3 week May leave.

If you’ve been working towards this job for 7 years then you still have a significant advantage.

I recently instructed a lawyer (a you g partner in a niche area), knowing she was going on mat leave for 6 months. It’s a big project which will run for ages, she has a capable 2IC, I know from my own experience that maternity leaves flashes by in the blink of an eye. Why would I deprive myself of the best person for the job because she will be temporarily unavailable.

I also said to her that the fact she was going on mat leave is a plus to me, not a negative, I want to support female lawyers and to make sure to repeat that if she got any grousing from old men.

StrangeToSee the problem with the suggestion that the lesser earning partner should pull out the stops to support the higher earning partners work isn't disturbed is structural sexism, meaning that women, on average, are paid less.

Of course there are exceptions as detailed in this thread, but that argument is essentially saying that women should put up and shut up to support a male higher earner.

And even if the female partner does earn less, I don't agree that it follows that her job and what it means to her is less important than her male partners.

OP, yes pregnancy and child-rearing do inhibit career development. It sucks. In your position, I would speak with your boss about your concerns and ask if there's any way you can gain valuable experience before you go on mat leave.