To think that women still can’t have it all?

[Oldbalance]

Posting this off the back of recent decisions I had to made, that have got me thinking about the sacrifices women continue to make if the want DC.

DH and I are TTC our first DC, I am 35 and DH is 38 so already time is less on my side. I was recently offered a new role with a pay rise, but would need to work there for the qualifying period before being entitled to maternity pay, which was only enhanced for 6 weeks. In my current company full salary is paid for 5 months stepping down to half pay. Due to rising COL we would struggle to have a decent quality of life on one salary and that is despite having a small mortgage. In addition the private medical cover in my role covers fertility treatment if we need it, it wouldn’t in new role. Weighing these things up, I decided not to take it, even for the initial pay raise, with a view to looking again if we cannot conceive.

Whilst DH sympathises, I did have to highlight to him the difficulty women face due to these circumstances and when I spelled it all out to him I think he started to understand why it’s a crap deal for women. He is the higher earner to it doesn’t make sense for him to take paternity leave which would be unpaid, it has never even been a consideration that he wouldn’t take a job for more money because of these reasons.

When weighing up what to do, quite a few family members and friends were pretty resigned to the fact that women just can’t have it all and now I’m inclined to agree even though in the past I would have said it was rubbish. But is it unreasonable to say that when it comes down to it, because of biology women actually can’t have it all, or am I missing something here?

So your husband isn’t able to “have it all” either? I think what you’re just starting to see are the conflicts between prioritising yourself and prioritising your children. If your husband wanted to take time out to look after a baby I’m sure he could if he started saving now. And if you want to take the higher paid job, surely that would help save for this? If you can’t afford a year of maternity leave because the new employer’s policy isn’t as generous, surely you still have option to go back earlier?

I agree with this. I would not swap for DH's life. He often complains about not seeing the kids enough. That's the product of his choices and I am not going to get involved in fixing it, but I feel pretty good about where I have ended up.

I actually think, in this context, women are closer to “having it all” than men.

Youve entirely dismissed your husband taking extended parental leave, while making decisions to ensure that you can. The level playing field would be for you to take the new job and then equally split leave.

I think it’s horrendous (and actually ultimately to the disadvantage of women) that Shared Parental Leave can be less generous than maternity leave. They are the same at my employer, but my husbands offers enhanced maternity but statutory ShPL only.

Im the higher earner though so I took the 5 months enhanced from my employer and then my husband took the remaining 4 month at statutory plus 2 unpaid. And I think that was as close to “having it all” as possible.

If he’d been the higher earner then I would’ve taken the whole 12 months and he would’ve lost on valuable time with DC.

You always will have to make choices about how you balance your work/home life and how you arrange finances. That’s true of all people (not just women and not just parents). What’s meant usually by you can’t have it all is you can’t have a career and a good relationship with your spouse and children and some time to yourself for hobbies etc. It’s rubbish though as you can balance life and work and kids needs and still have time to yourself. It won’t be perfect but it’s doable. Having kids takes up a lot of what was previously free time or work time and it’s expensive. If you choose to have kids it should have an impact on your life and it should have an impact on your partners as well. I stayed in the job with 6 months paid maternity leave and only took the 6 months. Partner moved jobs shortly before our second so he would be able to do more at home as his old job was really shit on work/life balance. It was a bit of a pay cut but less than if iI had gone part time. When we had 2 in full time childcare we were in a position to both work 4 days a week temporarily. Everyone can look for employment opportunities based on a combination of salary, benefits & work culture. Too many people just go for the most money they can get without looking for something that fits well with the life they intend to have. Too many men in particular do this with the assumption it’s not their problem as their wife/girlfriend will be the one to figure out how to make family life work. Don’t let your OH earning more be a barrier to you sharing the load. My OH earned more when we had kids but we split things evenly and less than 10 years on I’m the one earning more and I’ve done it at a family friendly firm with lots of flexibility

It depends on what 'having it all' means to you.

Example, husband and I both had maternity leave. He took 4 months (possible in the country we live) and I'm self employed so took 1 year. Both children went to part-time nursery when they turned 1 year old. I worked within those few hours (it limited me to a degree) but i also had plenty of time to go to the park afterwards, go for playdates etc. It also allowed me to be there for the sick days etc (again partly due to my flexible work too). Husband during that time didn't take on any extra responsibilities or apply for higher level jobs. It meant financially we restricted ourselves for some years, no big holidays long haul... but family time became our priority. For us, THAT is having it all. Having freedom for at least one of us to be there for the kids at the drop of a hat, freedom from overly compromising work conditions and freedom to indulge ourselves every weekday afternoon from 5.30pm onwards as a family of four.

I think lots of people mix up having it all, they think it means being successful, healthy, rich, motivated, working hard, lots of free time, etc etc. Those things all contradict and generally aren't possible at once. For me, having it all means each member of my family being 'on the whole' - satisfied and happy. As soon as the children started school, time came back to us and we both took on bigger projects again. If there's sick days or school plays we share the load. The key is being a team as best as possible.

I still don’t get why you keep explaining men’s perks to me. I didn’t say men don’t have it easier, I said nobody can have it all. Guessing you think men can have it all? Just say that then and save us both some time! You think men can have it all, I think both sexes can’t ‘have it all’, we agree to disagree, the end!

This was to @RosaBonheur it deleted my quote as I posted

Well nobody seriously thinks anybody can have it all, do they?

Because having it all in this context seems to mean simultaneously not working so you can have time with your child, and also progressing in your career and not making any financial sacrifices. Nobody has that.

But the OP doesn't have to sacrifice as much as she thinks if her husband steps up and does his fair share. The fact that his paternity leave would be unpaid isn't an excuse for not taking it unless they really are living pay cheque to pay cheque, in which case why is the OP even thinking about not taking the higher paid job?

Clearly no one have absolutely everything they want. A lot of people would hate my life and that's fair enough. Enjoying your lifestyle is subjective and personal.

But let's be very clear about what we're saying. This "can't have it all" phrase is only ever used in one context: it's a coded way of saying "women should not expect to be able both to have happy children and a successful career". If you strip away the bullshit and the whataboutery, this is what it boils down to.

And that's highly political and incredibly damaging to women. It's a way of telling working women that they've gone too far, they've asked for too much and they need to get back in one of two boxes, either the "career" box or the "family and children" box. You have to choose.

And its untrue. Just factually untrue. Masses of mothers work (more than half of mother work). A growing number of mothers are breadwinners and a small but growing number have a working mum heading the family. Telling women they can't have it all is just not true.

Someone invariably tips up at this point and says "yes but what are you sacrificing by choosing to work. Think of the children/work balance" etc. And it's certainly true that a lot of working mums find juggling all this difficult.

But the point is that's not on us. That's on men. If we're working too hard, struggling to get everything done, not spending enough time with our children that's because men are not doing their share. It's not because we "can't have it all".

Language is important. Of course not everyone wants to or has to have it all if they don't want to. But if you tell women they can't have it all you're presuming to tell them that it's their fault that they do too much. And it's not. It's men's fault.

THIS. I totally agree that women’s telling other wiener they can’t have it all is a massive part of the problem

*women

I think the financial struggle is - take a new job paying maybe £150 per month extra after deductions - how long do you have to put that money aside until you’ve made up the difference between being paid a full salary for 6 months vs only statutory pay, if you’re already earning £2.5k per month? It doesn’t make sense.

With cost increases, we need both of our salaries going on bills every month, to this point it also doesn’t make sense for DH to take unpaid leave. I actually want to work but then if you have DC who are very small who looks after them, when you need both salaries coming in?

Op, your attitude means you'll never have it all.

You and DH are a team. The team currently earns say 5k a month. If you take mat leave and he stays a work, the team earns say 3k a month during your unpaid period. After mat leave ends, the team goes back to earning 5k a month. So a loss of 2k per month for 8months say, 16k.

The alterative is you take the new job. The team now earns 5.5k a month. You take leave and then DH takes 6 months unpaid. During his unpaid period, the team earns 2.5k a month, so a loss of 3k a month for 6 months, 18k in total. When you are both back in work, the team I'd earning 5.5k and you asked up the additional 2k loss in no time, and then both earn more for longer.

But if you do the sums as individuals, and only look at a 6 month period, sure, don't take the promotion and be frustrated in your career for the next 10 years. See how much of a chilled relaxed mum you are as you watch DH climb the pole at your expense, when yes, you could have had it all and had more money to pay the nursery and childcare fees.

I'd be incliend to agree with this:

Op, your attitude means you'll never have it all.

Find all the reasons you want to not work, line them up and quit work. Becuase you couldn't have it all anyway.

So your husband can't have it all either then? Both genders get shafted it's not a unique experience to women only.

£150 a month does sound like a fairly small amount to change jobs for, to be fair.

What field are you in? Might a different employer offer more? Or better still, do you have any prospect of negotiating a pay rise or even a promotion and a pay rise with your current employer?

What about your husband? Could he move jobs and find an employer which offers paid paternity leave?

I still think your husband should be putting away a fixed percentage of his salary each month in preparation for having a baby. Then depending on how long it takes you to have one, you'll either have a useful fund to pay for the car seat, pram etc, or he'll have saved up enough to take paternity leave.

If you need both salaries, can't afford childcare and don't have family support, you don't have a child.

It doesn’t make sense for your DH to take unpaid leave but presumably you will? And you’re complaining because women can’t have it all?

And if you both need to work to pay bills, then surely you pay for childcare like most other people? Or are you getting ready for the whole “I really want to work but I just can’t afford it” thing?

No we can't have it all. Neither can men.

No normal person can have it all without someone - paid or unpaid doing everything else for them.

With cost increases, we need both of our salaries going on bills every month, to this point it also doesn’t make sense for DH to take unpaid leave. I actually want to work but then if you have DC who are very small who looks after them, when you need both salaries coming in?
Then in your situation you'll need to make some compromises, like every other family.

The issue is that you and your DH (I assume) knew you wanted to have children, but he did not factor this into his career planning.

He isn't alone in this. Plenty of men choose careers that are likely to keep them out the house for long hours, or focus on getting their career to a point where "it doesn't make sense" for them to work flexibily/take shared parental leave etc.

Now you're in this situation you and your DH will need to make the best choices for your family, but this isn't a "can women have it all" situation. It's a "another man doesn't factor in his desire for a family into his career planning because he assumes that all the hit will affect his wife" situation.

I agree, as women have better career opportunities increasingly they are choosing to not be parents, many countries are facing depopulation over the long term and governments have found themselves unable to incentivize women to have children.
I think over the long term being a mother will have to be a well-paid job or there will be no more children.

Being a mother doesn’t have to be a well paid job if men’s priorities change. DH and I both work full time and I don’t feel like I’ve been sold a lie because we both have time for work, for hobbies, for friends and we both do our share with the children and the general running of the household. That doesn’t mean anyone gets to “have it all” as adult life involves compromise and working full time obviously means that you have less time with your children.

@karmakameleon

Being a mother doesn’t have to be a well paid job if men’s priorities change. DH and I both work full time and I don’t feel like I’ve been sold a lie because we both have time for work, for hobbies, for friends and we both do our share with the children and the general running of the household. That doesn’t mean anyone gets to “have it all” as adult life involves compromise and working full time obviously means that you have less time with your children.

Exactly. It's perfectly possible for families to balance making money and managing a home/looking after children if the sacrifices and compromises happen from both parents. It requires a bit of planning, a bit of negotiation and critically, it requires the man to be prepared to introduce a bit of friction into his otherwise frictionless career path and social freedom to support the needs of the family.

Why is it only realistic for women to both earn money and support children?

Being a mother doesn’t have to be a well paid job if men’s priorities change
@karmakameleon I agree, but that seems like a big if?