To go with this theory on parenthood / working mums ?

[Keepgoing88]

So this is random but please tell me if it’s a dumb theory…
i had children in my late twenties / early thirties. I was working in a professional role and a graduate. None of my friends had children for at least a good 3 years after me. What struck me is that many assumed being a parent would have a detrimental effect on their career and it suddenly occurred to me that I never thought like that. My mum had 3 kids in her early twenties and then thirties, was the main earner in a lucrative professional career throughout my childhood. What I’m getting at is … I never associated motherhood with lack or ending career, however the majority of the friends who have delayed being a parent had stay at home mums. I just wondered if there could be a correlation in mind set. I’m sure if my mum had given up a career to have me it might have made me think twice about having children in my twenties. Also in my NCT group in my late twenties one of the mums said ‘oh I can’t imagine having a baby before 30’ and everyone agreed (all mid to late thirties). Turns out they all had parents who had given up careers / not worked after having children.

Depends.

I had a high flying career was doing well brought my ow house had a car.

Had one baby then twins.

Nursery would have been twice my salary.

Not everyone gets to make the same choices - I felt lucky to be there for my kids and we have a good bond and a lot of fun.

Well, since you are using that example, what's your career situation compared with your friends who had children later?
I had children in my mid-thirties because that's when I met my partner, but I do think that having them sooner would have been detrimental to my career.
I was already mid-senior level when I had my first child, and the hours/commitment I had before is nothing like what I can do now. I'm sure it will come back when they are a bit older but that's still 4-5 years where I have to slow down.

That is a good point. My career did take maybe one step backwards but it’s def on the up now and has been for a while. I kind of felt I would have the same problem even in my 30s but then I guess timing is different depending on career!

Depends on the career. Scientist, academic, medicine, harder to get in the ladder after having kids. Not impossible, but your kids are then priority, as they should be. That makes it harder to focus as much as these careers need you to.

Makes sense. My mum always worked so never occurred to me that it would end my career.
But although I know people that have gone part time, no one at my work has stopped working to be a SAHM.
The SAHM I know always planned to be SAHM and didn't really have big careers.....or something else happened like redundancy.

Interesting theory, but I think what the individual wants to do plays a bigger part than what their mothers did. For example. My mum was SAHM, but motherhood has not resulted in the lack or end of my own career, because I didn't want it to. However, before children, I did have role models of women who were mothers and also had fab careers they really enjoyed, and I wanted that for myself. So I could see that it was possible, and motherhood didn't have to mean total sacrifice of oneself and career.

Probably, in my late 20s I was going back to Uni to change career path and then worked on my progression. The worst time for me to have children would have been early 30s I think, because I was in the middle of building my way up. Before would probably have worked too career-wise, but then the cost of having children would have been difficult to sustain (in London at the time).
It's a shame that this is something women should be worried about though :/

And my mum had 5 children and went back to work when we all in school: she was an engineer before having children, a teacher afterwards...
There is nothing wrong about being a teacher, but unfortunately it was a massive step back in her career in terms of progression and salary.

My Mum stayed at home until my youngest sibling was 5.

she now has grandchildren in the double figures and none of my siblings (all sisters) have had to forego a career.

All the women in my family have worked, as is usual for working class women.

Didn’t occur to me to have children in my twenties as I was at medical school then training. I don’t know anyone who had a child before 30; most were after 35. That’s how it is for most women who do long degrees with significant time spent in further training or career-building afterwards.

I would say in my experience becoming a mother has been detrimental to my career, at least in the short term. Companies can be so awkward about flexibility/letting you work part time and with childcare costs it isn’t always viable to work.

There are definitely more SAHMs now because of childcare costs and practicalities, rather than necessarily wanting to give up your career.

My Nan worked. My mum went back to work (evenings) 2 weeks after I was born (she was 23). There was no question that my career would take a back seat if when/I became a parent.

I put in the legwork during my 20s. Had DD at 32. Became a contractor for a couple of years (DH worked away all week) then got back on the ladder at a higher point than I left it.

My best friend had her son at 19. She did a degree when he started comp and has built her career rapidly in her late 30s and 40s.

There isn’t one perfect route, but I do wish more men would step up and care for their children equally so that it isn’t always expected that the mum will stop working and take the career/pension hit when children come along.

I didn't qualify until 29. I had my daughter at 32. My mum worked as a nurse throughout out my childhood. My older sister had her daughter at 30. If I had my daughter before I qualified I would have had nearly 2years out of work as I wouldn't have been able to do my job whilst pregnant due to risks to the unborn during my PhD which would have had an impact on my career plus I would have only been entitled to statutory maternity pay as I was on a stipend.

My auntie only 5 years older than me as my nan was in her 40s when she had her with a 21y age gap to my dad had her kids at 19 and 20. Her and her husband wanted different experiences to their childhood. He was brought by his gran and my auntie was bullied for having a "granny as a mum". So I do think there is a connection between your childhood experiences and when you have children but there are hundreds of factors that contribute to when is the right time for a couple

I can see where you’re coming from. My mum was a SAHM pretty much straight out of school, but when we were all late primary age she went to college and by the time I was a teenager she was working in a graduate professional role and her career has continued to soar since then. She’s mid 50s and very much a career woman now. When I adopted my son, I was 27 and a HEO in the civil service. I got promoted to SEO about two years after I returned to work after a year of adoption leave, so was on about £45k by the time I was 30. I’m now 33, just did a lateral move but am looking to move up to G7 in two years. I don’t think I’d have the ambition if it wasn’t for my mum role modelling it for me.

I had my children early (I was 27 having my third) and in the early low paid stages of my career. I carried on working and was senior in my profession by 35.

I think it was enabled by some flexibility in my role eg I could pick up from childcare at 4 pm and finish work in the evening.

It was also helped by a Labour government and higher tax credits at the time meaning I could afford the childcare.

But I think having them before I got into the senior leadership stages helped. I can’t imagine having babies now in my early 40s and now things are really picking up they’re teens so fairly independent. I also got a clear run through my 30s. It was much easier doing all the baby / sleepless nights / constant illnesses when I didn’t have so much responsibility for others.

I also became a single parent at 30 and had little family help but in a way that meant I had no choice but to crack on. Probably exhausted myself in the process though.

I think a bigger factor is childcare price, availability and hours in your area. Also how many employers are within a commutable distance within the child care hours available. For example, almost every child care provider around us (bar nannies) work 8-6 or 7.30-5.30. There is 1 day nursery that does 7.30-6.30. It is much more expensive than the others and has a huge waiting list, plus massive fines for late pickup. Pre children, I worked in a city nearly 1hr drive away, I needed to be at my desk by 8.30, I had to park at the park and ride and get the bus to my workplace. This meant I needed my child care to realistically start at 7.15. Bar hiring a nanny, there was not 1 child care provider with a 7am start. I finished at 4.30, but the park and ride bus came at around 4.45, then through the city stopping at almost every stop, I got to the park and ride usually about 5.15. I then had the drive home, which due to rush hour always took until 6.15. Bar a nanny, I could not get child care for 6.15. We could not afford to hire a nanny.

Our area has become a bit of a haven for Londoners moving for cheaper house prices. They have all come to the realisation that they cannot continue their London jobs if they need child care due to the train times and child care hours. So the train to London leaves our station at 6.50 and gets in at 8.30, there is not another one until 7.45 (but it requires a change so doesn't actually terminate in London until 9.30). Similarly the 4.30 train back gets in at 5.50, the next train back is at 5.45 but doesn't get in until 7.05. That is indeed if they are running and there are not rail replacement works/ signal issues/ cancellations in which case commuting by road is nearing 4 hours. Bar hiring a nanny, there is absolutely no child care cover for these commutes. Local jobs do not pay well, there are no equivalent employers unless you are willing to drive over an hour to the 2 nearest cities. Even then the wages are much lower than before. There are not many nanny's in our area, so they are a limited child care resource.

Surely it’s less about having a working mum and more about actually finding a decent man who will commit to having children and do a fair share of parenting?
My DD is nearly 30 with a decent career but finding a good man is near impossible, they all sound horrendous.

I mean there's is loads of evidence that motherhood has a detrimental effect on women's careers and earning potential. So perhaps they were just looking at the reality of the situation?

You can do all the positive thinking you want. Doesn't chance the reality. Your theory feels a bit individualistic, bootstraps, blameful of women and unpleasant tbh.

I never associated motherhood with lack or ending career

Most people know that having DC affects a woman's career, whether or not their own DM worked. It's unfortunately evidenced time and time again and to not have considered that is a bit odd, but I wouldn't call it a theory. Sure people are influenced by what their parents do and can assume that's normal, but they also have wider world experience to draw on as they grow up, so I wouldn't say your theory prevails. Just that a lot more work is needed to make work fairer for women and parents overall.

I think it depends. I knew I wanted three children and quite close together so it had to impact my career.

I spent my 20s at uni, travelling, saving, buying property and generally getting to a good position career-wise.

For me, the career impact wasn’t a concern as DH’s salary covers all our bills, but I wanted to feel I was in the right place in my life to have children and I knew I would only feel like that if I was a property owner, had decent savings, a good career to go back to, and felt I hadn’t missed out on travelling or going on holiday.

I know like can you really be that hard of thinking op?

It must depend on the line of work. In my job it honestly makes no difference at all if you take 9 months maternity leave or go down to part time for a few years. I'm still at the same general grade and pay as my colleagues just pro rata. If I'd had 6 kids and took 6 years leave in a fast pace, ever changing industry, I may well have fallen behind. One issue is that I can't move up a level because training requires long hours and travel, so in that respect I am limited as a consequence of having a family. I don't mind, though. I always knew I wanted kids and that career would come second so my expectations are maybe lower.

I’m sure if my mum had given up a career to have me it might have made me think twice about having children in my twenties.

My parents had very complicated infertility problems, and they had been married for nearly ten years when I was born. My father, who worked harder in school and his career than anyone I know, is a very successful lawyer. My mother was a teacher until I was born. Because of my father’s career success, and because they had ten years with no kids to pay for, my mother was able to be a SAHM when I was born.

And she was completely thrilled. She wasn’t sure she would ever have a baby, and although she didn’t dislike teaching, she never really saw it as her calling in life. My parents tried for six years for a second baby, but that never happened. As a kid, I could always tell my mother was delighted to be home with me, and we had a lot of fun.

I went to law school, passed the bar, and keep my law license active, but all I’ve ever really wanted to do was write, get married, have kids, and stay home with them at least when they’re young. I was very clear about that with my now-husband. The narrative I grew up with was, “It’s wonderful to be able to stay home with your beloved children,” not, “It was so unfortunate when women have to leave careers to be home with their kids.”

After I left for college, my mother ran for local office and won. Her current term of office is ending soon and she’s retiring. I’m a SAHM to two daughters.

When women have kids, and why, and what they do about their careers is so individual - by person, by family, by financial situation. I don’t think it’s as easy to generalize about as you think.

Good example of someone starting out saying it makes no difference at all and then revealing there are many ways it makes a difference. From starting out with lower expectations because you want DC (a man doesn't need these lower expectations), to going part-time for years and therefore earning less (a man doesn't need to), to not moving up a level because of long hours/travel (plenty of DHs do this and DW picks up the slack at home), and so on to the conclusion that yep, women are limited as a consequence of having a family.

So I guess OP's theory needs to change to some women are just less aware for whatever reason, be it parents, conditioning to accept less, or whatever, but the system still sucks.

I think it’s probably down to the quality of life you saw in your mum. Mine was back to work when I was 3 months old and worked FT in a corporate/finance type role my whole childhood, at times with a good 1.5 hour commute to the office.

I had dc early to late 30s (only met Dh when I was 28) and I always saw them as a complement to my career. I had my first in the middle of a PhD and second in between postdocs. Dh started a new business when our first was 2 months old. We never saw career as taking a hit for either of us because of dc. We’ve built a life around work-life balance and careers and quality family time. We do actually both work part time to a degree but not to the detriment of our careers really.

I definitely think some of that came from knowing that it was absolutely possible, but that family was a priority too and that we’d find a way to do both and have the right balance. I definitely saw that with my mum. I suppose if she really struggled, I’d feel differently.