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!

@CocoC

big job and children is totally possible- but those parents don’t do regular school pickups, take kids to parc after school with friends, chat on the way back, and do all the little things which are so important day to day.

Depends on the big job I suppose.

There's lots of 'little' jobs where parents won't get to do lots of that either.

Should no parents work so they can do all those things?

Or do we all just accept the reality of life that we all need money to survive and being employed is good for mental health? And aim for a better work life balance for everyone not just mums?

@Icanstillrecallourlastsummer
I am not convinced this is biological (beyond the first couple of months where there are a LOT of hormones going around). Later it will be due to the fact that society allows women to become PCG while making it difficult for men tot take that role. In countries where maternity/ paternity leave looks different you do not get this same thing. If you told a dad in Norway he could never love his child in the same way as its mother you would not be popular or have a lot of support
Look across the animal kingdom and human societies that have risen and fallen over the millenias across different parts of the world and you will see overwhelmingly that the mother is normally the primary parent for their offspring. To pretend that this is all because of 'socialisation' because a few modern Scandinavian countries seem to rebut this to some extent is bordering on ludicrous. A different model of parenting is absolutely part of the socialisation in countries such as Norway and Sweden, they are simply socialising people and parents differently hence you get different attitudes and behaviours. This is in no way proof that men and women parent in the same way as using extremely patriarchal countries as examples that women are biologically predisposed to be subservient to men.

If you look across the animal kingdom, mother animals throw their offspring out as soon as BFing is done so they can prepare for the next batch. They also often kill their off spring to make way for a new mate.

It seems your view is that the approach in the UK is 100% biological and nothing to do with socialisation - and proof of nature's way. While in other countries it's all just socialisation. Convenient.

And as an aside, it's it great that as society we aren't driven entirely by biology and procreation. Seems much more civilised that way doesn't it?

@Bumpitybumper

Doesn't that mean that we can use socialisation to over come 'natural' instincts?

I am very uncomfortable with this idea that women 'should compartmentalise' their feelings around their children.

It wasn't long ago when women in most upper class families were told to compartmentalise thief feelings about sending 7 year-old boys to boarding school. They were banboozled inti the belief this was for the good of the child and for the wider society - 'the done thing.' But now, most people would be quite horrified at this. Not long before that, women who had children outside marriage were conditioned to believe it was for the good of society to give up their children for adoption. Just two examples of where women have had no choice but to compartmentalise their feelings for 'society' and often with horrendous impact on mental health..

I think people are often talking at cross purposes on this thread because there's a massive difference between your average 2 parent working family working defined 37 hour weeks and the kind of scenario where infants and pre-schoolers are in childcare or with a nanny from 8am to 6pm, meaning that the parents only see them for an hour or so in the morning and the same at night (if that). Will the next generation look back on this kind of set-up with the same kind of disbelief that we now look back on other instances in the past we're women have been socially / economically conditioned to
compartmentalise separation - even to the point they may claim there is no such thing? It wouldn't surprise me at all

A society where women only see your kids a couple of hours a day is not 'having it all'. It is very sad. Some might say it's tantamount to emotional violence against women. I don't think it's sustainable and I do think it's something that future generations will look back on with a - "do you remember when nurseries used to take babies for 12 hours a day" kind of disbelief, just as we are now shocked at things that happened only 50 years ago.

So I do think women in the future will just not put up with what they have to put up with now and 12 hour days of childcare, 5 days per week will be a thing of the past. You can already see massive change with the WFH culture in very recent years. Having said this, the expectation that things will likely change in the near future is not much use to a woman who is having to make difficult decisions right NOW. Her child is young now. Saying cut your hours or get your husband to be flexible is simply not an option for many people at this time. So nobody should be blamed or scorned for doing what they feel they have to do or told to compartmentalise their feelings. It's a very insidious and dangerous message.

@Icanstillrecallourlastsummer and @Topgub of course we can socialise people to do all sorts of things and go against nature and biology. Before we do this though, I think it's worth asking why do we want to do this and who would this change serve?

Are we desperate to abandon our biology because it doesn't fit well in the patriarchal capitalist society that we exist in? Is there a way of adapting society before or as well as looking to adapt our own biological inclinations?

I also think biology is strong and impacts people differently and can be impossible to override in some cases. Some women for example have no biological desire to have children whilst others have an innate strong biological drive. Both are completely normal but we should be wary of forcing some people to abandon their biological drivers just because other people don't view them as important in their own lives.

@subtitle FFS, so women working is the same as sending 7 year olds off to boarding school?

Also, for the 10th time and ref "A society where women only see your kids a couple of hours a day is not 'having it all'." How many hours does a mother need to see her kids (or want to see her kids) to be a good mother? I am still waiting for the magic number.

And this: "So I do think women in the future will just not put up with what they have to put up with now and 12 hour days of childcare, 5 days per week will be a thing of the past. You can already see massive change with the WFH culture in very recent years" I agree with wholeheartedly. This is the way parents can work and still have an acceptable work life balance. This is exactly what works for me. It's not a future thing, it's HERE. It is possible. In some jobs. It should be possible in all jobs. For the people who want it.

For the record, I don't think anyone should shut away their feelings, or be fored to do anything they want to do. But women should not be told that biologically they should never want to be away from their children or they are shit mums, nor should they be told that if they want career and children they are wanting too much and it's impossible.

@Bumpitybumper ah ok, so the women who want to work are just a little bit biologically deficient.

"Are we desperate to abandon our biology because it doesn't fit well in the patriarchal capitalist society that we exist in?"

And no. We are desperate to adandon the rhetoric that women are biologically programmed to stay at home with kids, a "fact" that is used to maintain the patriarchy.

I have never suggested mothers are perfect parents but that they have a distinct parenting role in the animal kingdom and human history compared to fathers. They tend to to be the primary parent and to pretend otherwise is just ridiculous.

Also you have supposed wrongly that I think the UK approach is 100% biologically driven. What I objected to is where people suggest that all these examples of countries and societies where mothers are the primary parent are all because of socialisation whereas Scandanavia has somehow managed to eradicate socialisation and achieved a different model. My point is that their approach also involves heavy socialisation and there are societal norms and economic incentives that support their model of parenting. Holding them up as a Bastian of how things are without socialisation is a nonsense.

@subtitle

No one is talking at cross purposes.

You are making up a narrative (babies in childcare 12 hous a day 5 days a week) no one has even mentioned to suit an argument no one is discussing.

No one is claiming that no women suffer separation anxiety from babies. Some clearly do. If its that crippling they can't function then clearly they shouldn't be apart from their baby. I dont think its that common to that extent.

Most women are absolutely fine going back to work.

No need for any 'emotional violence'

Sorry that doesn't suit your ideal that all women secretly want to be at home.

"Holding them up as a Bastian of how things are without socialisation is a nonsense."

This is absolutely not that point I was making.

@Bumpitybumper

There are some biological and some socialisation aspects to all our choices.

I didnt 'abandon' my biology. In fact I think its far more biologically normal to adopt the 'village' approach.

The idea of 1 primary care giver completely devoted to1 child is not biologically 'normal' not in human or animal terms.

Its a completely modern invention borne out of religion and sexism

(Dr Spock anyone?)

@subtitle is 12 hours a day 5 days a week of childcare not somewhat of an exaggeration?

I don't even know of any childcare settings open 12 hours a day!

@Icanstillrecallourlastsummer
What on earth are you talking about? Nobody has mentioned anybody being biologically 'deficient' and it's disgusting to suggest otherwise.

Suggesting some women have a strong biological desire to spend time with their young children is not the same as saying women shouldn't work. You may feel you don't have a biological desire to do this (totally fine and normal) but my point is that those women who do feel this should be supported and valued too.

The patriarchy actually doesn't want women to stay at home and look after children in all societies. Look at the UK right now. Women are actively economically encouraged to work irrespective of whether they wish to stay at home or not. Different things will suit the patriarchy at different times. The commonality will be that the setup will suit men and not women.

@Bumpitybumper "You may feel you don't have a biological desire to do this (totally fine and normal) but my point is that those women who do feel this should be supported and valued too."

Actually I didnt' and don't feel like this at all. And you are absolutely suggesting that somehow women who don't feel like this are somehow not quite in tune with their biological purpose. Whether you realise it or not.

The UK does not encourage women to pursue careers, that's absolute rubbish.

The patriarchy doesn't suit men any more than it suits women.

The idea that men don't care about wanting to be with their kids is as big a lie as any.

Perpetuated by women who don't want to have to share parenting because of their separation anxiety.

@Icanstillrecallourlastsummer

Yup.

The judgement is very clear.

How else would you explain being different to all other animals?

And @Bumpitybumper perhaps you can answer how many hours we must demand to spend with our kids to be adequeately responding to our biological destiny as mothers? I am still waiting for the magic number.

I see 2 possibilities that could help.
First, see a therapist about setting boundaries with your work. Work will always suck every bit of energy it can - most of us can benefit from guidance in knowing when to say no to additional workload, and techniques to switch off from work intruding on home life.
Second, consider paying for additional help at home - perhaps an au-pair and/or a cleaner.
Good luck xx

@Topgub I'm not saying that every woman that doesn't become a SAHM or the primary parent or a parent at all is abandoning their biological drivers. We all have different drivers and that is my point.

My point is that mothers tend to play different role in parenting than fathers. This was true before the 1950s housewife archetype came about and has manifested in many different ways in different societies over time. Most of these models aren't consistent with women literally staying at home on their own just looking after the baby. I don't really understand why you think I'm suggesting otherwise?

Trying to pursue a model where mothers and fathers are the same and approach parenting in the same way is radical and we need to question why we want to do this and what some women may stand to lose from pursuing this as the only and correct approach to.parentinh mad motherhood.

@Bumpitybumper So woman can have the same oppertunities in life to do things other than parenting. Noone is saying it's the only correct way for everyone, but it's countering the apparently very commonly held view, held by women btw, that other women shouldn't expect to be able to both work and have children. The insiuation is that they are somehow unrealitic, greedy, or poor parents, if they they do want anything beyond their roles as mothers.

@Bumpitybumper

But you are saying that.

You cant say women have acted a certain way forever due to evolutionary /biological instincts and that its also normal if they act differently. Both cant be true.

Why would we want men and women to parent equally?

Is that even a question?

And women who feel like 'that' haven't seemed to care much about what women who don't want to sacrifice their whole selves to mother hood are losing.

The idea that sharing care equal with your childs other parent (they have 2!) means losing out is nonsense

You will never achieve true equality by trying to deny or eradicate the fundamental differences between men and women.

Some posters on here may not have particularly felt any separation anxiety and if that's how you felt, then that's how you felt. There will be a spectrum of experiences, of course. But it's patently obvious that, on a group level, the vast majority of women do experience separation anxiety in a way that men do not. Some of this will be socialisation, but a large part of it is biological. Always has been and always will be..Society has developed the way it has precisely because men and women are they way they are. If men were biologically wired to instinctively need proximity to their infants, then societies through history would have evolved that way snd men would be doing just that. As it is, where children are concerned, men are different to women and so we are where we are. But rather than trying to fit a square in a circle, better to just admit that what women want may well be different to men and then expect men to meet us on out terms, rather than feeding into the patriarchal narrative that women can "have it all" by working a 60 hour week with three children - "yes you silly women. Stop being all emotional about this now - just 'compartmentalise' and shut up."

@subtitle I did feel seperation anxiety actually. I found a way to find a work life balance that I felt happy with nonetheless. All the people who are saying they have "it all" based on the OP's definition say they do NOT put their kids into childcare 12 hours a day, or just spend 1 hr a day with their kids or work a 60 hr week. We are recognising that this will for many not be ideal, including for us and our kids. But that is NOT the only way.

The only one insisting that that is happening and is the only way to work with kids - and therefore making working with small children impossible for many - is you.

of course we can socialise people to do all sorts of things and go against nature and biology

Now biologically we would all have a new baby each year, hoping half of them will survive to adulthood, but we have also moved away from that. In the entire human history, the period where the mother was home doing fingerpainting with toddlers is no more significant and closer to nature than Scandinavian fathers taking parental leave.