Working mothers can't have it all?

[Unicornhat]

I've never been ruthlessly ambitious but have always worked hard and been in pretty senior roles since my mid 20s. I'm currently in a snr manager role in a large company and earn a really good salary with perks etc. I feel like I kind of fell into this role - I've never consciously decided this is where I've wanted my career to be, I was approached about the job and here we are.
I now have an almost 2 year old and I hope to have another.
I'm finding the balance really difficult. I have so much less interest in my job and I'm fed up of it taking up so much headspace outside of the office, and I'm fed up of being the manager. It's a role where you're creative and always coming up with more and more new ideas. The workload is intense I always feel I'm letting someone down.
Realistically, for me to get a part time job, or even one that gives you an opportunity for a proper lunch break and to leave on time, would mean a massive pay cut. Also, if I step back for a while I'm concerned I wouldn't get back into a senior role and salary for a v long time.
Am I just crap at managing things, or is it possible to hold down a good career and have young children? Has anyone given up a job like this and then regretted it? Have you struggled financially?
My sister and in laws keep telling me to get an easier job but it's not that simple!

^ IncompleteSenten
Nobody can "have it all". There are things you gain and things you lose in every situation.^

I agree with this, and I am happy with the work/life/time/income/me/family balance I have worked hard to achieve. I do think that I have had a huge advantage as a woman. I have a colleague, male, who is roughly my age, who also has 2 dc - born before shared parental leave was a thing - who will often say he rushed he'd been able to spend more time with his kids when they were younger. I had 12 months mat leave twice, and had the freedom to choose whether to return full or part time. Legally, my colleague could have asked for flexible working, but 20 years ago he wouldn't have had the wider support/understanding of his working network to do so.

Given a choice would an under five pick to be at home with a parent or stuck in a nursery For the first five years the needs of the child should come first mum or dad it doesn't matter but one of them should make a sacrifice

I don't really understand this narrative. If you look back through history it's wasn't the norm for mothers to spend all their time with u5s doing rhymes, sensory etc. There would have been a lot more outside help eg families & neighbours. Plus mothers wouldn't have the time without washing machines, dishwashers, microwaves etc.

& rich people had help including childcare

Babies and toddlers were not spending 90% of their waking hours in structured, happy-clappy institutions either though.

Comparisons with the past are irrelevant. It's what you think is best for your kids now. That comes first and foremost for most people.

@EmptyHouse0822

Of course I realise that not every family can have what we do but again, axyou admit, that does come down to an elephant choice

you are fortunate to be able to choose what matters to you.

Surely that's the most important thing rather than being annoyed someone else is achieving something you probably don't even want?

@outtheshowernow

And what happens at 5?

We stop giving a shit what the kid wants? I'm pretty sure mist 5 yo would rather be at home than go to school. Should we all just home school?

We are not a child led family. We are a family led family. Our life is set up to suit us all not just the tiny wannabe dictators.

What I want is as important as what anyone else wants.

I also hate to burst your bubble but my kids never went to nursery. My under 5s were at home with a parent. (Excluding preschool)

I’m not annoyed about anything or anyone.

Like I said, I could achieve more in my career if I increased my hours, and I have the opportunity to do that, but that would mean spending more time away from my children and that’s not what I want.

And I have previously said how I know I’m fortunate to be able to make that choice.

School for a 5 year-old is nothing like nursery for a baby. This comparison is nonsense.

@subtitle

Well I'd we're going to point out nonsense then its nonsense to suggest a baby is capable of choosing what they want.

A 5 yo is.

@EmptyHouse0822

Then I'm not sure what the issue is?

You dont want to progress your career.

You're happy as you are.

Your initial post implied I shouldn't say I have it all because it wasn't fair to those who didn't.

I'd imagine the vast majority (as shown by this thread) who say they dont have it all or who say it's impossible dont even want it.

They just want to put the boot into wm

Exactly. A baby is incapable of choosing what they want. They have no sense of self as separate to the mother before 6-9 months. It depends where you want them to develop that sense of self really - in an institution for the vast majority of their waking hours, or in a home setting. It's a tragedy of the modern world that many families these days have little choice. Economic necessary too often has to come over the interests of children.

@subtitle

You're deluded if you think economic necessity is a modern thing

Mothers have always worked. Those rich enough not to certainly weren't attached to their kids either

I read these “can’t have it all” threads with a sense of fatigue and depression. They always go the same way.

Someone asks whether women can “have it all”. People then fall over themselves to say “no you can’t”.

My problems with this are numerous but to state the most important:

• Men never question whether they can “have it all”. They have what they can take and don’t sit around worrying about what they are entitled to have
• Manifestly there are women who do “have it all” (as defined here). I am one of them. I have a well paying, flexible job, a happy child and a supportive partner. As do others on this thread. Why are people constantly queuing up to tell me I am lying?

People confuse “having it all” with “making compromises”. Everyone has to make some compromise, we can’t all both make a million a year and live on a beach in Bora Bora. That doesn’t mean we aren’t making our lives work for us.

Can we all just stop with the “women: lower your expectations” rhetoric. You can have what’s important to you if you prioritise it and focus on it. Stop telling other women what they should be doing.

When I was growing up, it was possible to have a house and just one parent working on a very modest income. Probably 90% of mums didn't need to work, definitely not full-time. There was no such thing as babies in day centres from 8 in the morning until 6pm.

@subtitle

How old are you?

150?

Or maybe you grew up in a 1950s American sitcom?

The idea of people idealising a world where no mothers work gives me the shudder

Its bad enough it's 2022 and we still have a majority of positions of power and influence held by men

@Thepeopleversuswork

👏👏

Nobody is telling other women anything. They are talking about their reality and their personal priorities. That's it.

it's all very well saying, "Oh look at me... I have a flexi job and so does DH and we have family around us and just one child..."

Well, what if you had 3 children? Whst if you had a different type of job? What if your husband could not cut his hours? What if you had no family around to help?

Many people do struggle - inc the OP - so stop trying to deny their reality and shut them down.

YANBU
All of the high earners I know that have kids either have a partner that does the majority of childcare or childminders/nannies to watch the children.
I do think it's unusual for someone to be able to have a big career and be home a lot for the children.

My DH is a high earner and I'm a SAHM

@124scones This is just terrible math based on assumptions that don't apply to lots of people and lots of kids.

When my daughter was small I worked full time (save a day a month). I worked at home. She got up at 5:30 and was dropped at nursery at 8:30. I worked will 4-430 (full time working day was 7.5 hrs, I skipped lunch), so 7.5/8 hrs in nursery 2 of which she slept. Then we had 3-4 hrs before she went to bed at 7:30ish. So I only "missed" about 5.5-6 of her waking hours and was with her 7 every day. One day a week I would go into the office but my husband and I would share lifts so she'd do roughly the same (maybe half an hour more that day) so although she wasn't with me, she was with a parent. 1.5 days a week she was with grandparents rather than nursery, similar hours, not sure how that fits into your good/ bad parenting scenario.

So back to the question - how much are you allowed, in your estimations - to be away from your child to be a good parent? Not at all? Does time with other people count? Or does it have to be the mother?

@subtitle yeah many people do struggle. That's not reason to tell them it's cruel to be away from their children and they ought to pack in their jobs. What would be MUCH better would be normalising flexi working so that more women could do it, so they can have a family/ work balance that works for them, and allows them not to have to choose one or the other.

I'm not telling anyone to pack in their jobs. I just can't understand why people give their own experience as if it's ideal or even remotely relevant to anyone else.

@subtitle

You mean like you're doing by saying having kids in childcare is akin to child abuse?

I did not say it is child abuse. I said it was a compromise which many families have to struggle with these days because most families now need two full time incomes to even get a mortgage on a modest house in a modest area.

@subtitle

Yeah?

What's wrong with that?

@subtitle You are basically saying that anything else is cruel to the children. I assume you are a SAHP. So I gather you have justified the fact that you have not contributed financially to the household, or hold a career, with your view that SAHP is ultimately better for children. They may be your view, for your children, but it's not universal. So it's a bit rich telling others that they are applying their apparently super rare personal circumstances (which really aren't that rare as you can see by this thread) to women in general when you are in fact doing exactly the same thing.