AIBU to want a highflying career as well as being a Mum?

[ManhattanMama]

I've only been back at work for 2 weeks and am already having conflicts between work and homelife which I'm struggling to resolve. I work in investment banking, and before having DS (nearly 7 mths old), I used to work 8am - 6.30pm at a minimum, usually longer. Obviously I've already cut back on my hours, and am generally doing 8.30 to 5.30 which just about leaves me enough to time to dash to daycare to pick DS up before 6.30 (I have to take 2 trains to get there).

The problem I've got is that my job just isn't a predictable 9-5 kind of role - things happen which mean that I may have to start early or work late. I've been asked to take part in a Women in Banking mentoring program which means I'm committed to being at work late every Thursday for the next 6 weeks - I asked DH before agreeing whether he was happy for me to do it and he said yes but (surprise, surprise) - the first time I'm home late and he's in a real strop with me because he had to get all of DS's stuff ready for daycare and do the late night feed by himself. He was literally ignoring me this morning as he was so annoyed, so I had it out with him and he said "Now you're a mum you should be happy to just turn up and do the 9-5 then get home to be with our son, not spending time networking and trying to be the career woman".

AIBU or is this completely out of order? Why can I not have a career AND be a good mum? I've worked my rear end off to get to the position I have at the moment and I don't want to do a half-arsed job now just because I have a baby. Things aren't being helped by the fact that everytime I talk to my Mum she says "DS must be finding it so hard only seeing you for an hour a day" - she gave up work to have kids and thinks I should do the same.

What do you think? AIB selfish to want to keep working even though we can afford for me to stop? Career aside, I don't think I could cope with being home with DS all day - it's much harder than working!

Sorry it's so long...

squiffy talks a lot of sense!

but why do you think my children aren't number one in my life just because they are looked after by a nanny?

there is no question at all in my mind as to priorities - I would leave any meeting/any client in a fraction of a second if I got a call needing me to do so.

it is entirely possible to be completely devoted to your children without being joined at the hip.

Squiffy - that is an excellent post.

I would second the point that it doesn't actually last too long, and because of that it really is worth gritting your teeth and getting through it. IMO.

DH and I work very full time (M&A/Law/Investment banking combination). My DC are now 4 and 6 and pretty much both at full time school (smaller one is part time till September). It then gets hugely easier - they are ill less often, if your childcare falls through there is less to deal with if they are at school, you gradually build up a network that will support you and help out through the sticky times (my DCs both have in their class mothers in very similar situations to me with experienced, practical, reliable nannies who are always happy to pick one or both of my DC up from school or give them tea or whatever on the odd occasion we are stuck and vice versa).

And I definitely agree with Squiffy about developing a thicker skin (spent some time this weekend with a SAHM, whose children's successes were solely due to her staying at home and nurturing them apparently ). Whatever. My DCs are lovely little things - happy, secure, funny, well-mannered and bright as buttons. If your children are barometers of the care they get, mine are doing just fine.

MrsW, it's just my personal view that children feel and sense a greater level of parental care and 'priority' if a parent is with them more, during the first, formative, pre-school years. I'm not talking forever, just those years when their life is forming and is largely at home. That's my personal view. I'm glad you're happy with your own views and ways of doing things; it's the same with me

Amen, squiffy.

It does not have to be as cut-and-dried as half of the partnership always putting the child first and the other half putting their career first. It is possible for 2 working parents to deal with each contingency on a case-by-case basis. In other words, work out in a specific instance which party is best placed to, say come out of the high meeting to deal with the broken arm, whether that be nanny first, followed by mummy or daddy as soon as one of them can get off work.

Subject to the proviso (by squiffy, xenia and countless other wise dual working parents on this thread) that both parties must see childcare as a shared task.

Very wise advice from Squiffy and by the way I don't know a working father or mother in the land who doesn't put their child first. I have been in very important meetings where a man has left because a child is very sick. We all prioritise all the time. All working parents put their children first. I can't be bothered with an argument with part timers or house wives about who puts children first most but arguably any parent who works very hard is putting chidlren first. Children do better in homes with high income. Poverty is the biggest indicator of life time failure in the UK. Obviously if children are abused by a housewife or full time working mother or father or don't feel loved then that's a huge impact on them but as long as that isn't happening then working may actually be putting children first.

Can I just endorse what was said above about when they get older. Under 5s can be war zone particularyl if you have 3 under 4 as we did at one point. Whether you're full time at home or both working very much full time it is horrendous. Night after night you're woken up, you've never enough time, there isn't time to keep the house nice or even have a shower some days.

I also think you don't want children all the time to think they are the centre of the universe. Adults have needs too and as children get a bit older it does them good to be squashed a bit, told no I actually prefer to go out tonight or be alone with my husband you are not some nasty little spoilt emperor whom your parents serve, you are someone we love but who we do not want to spend all our time with just as you don't want to spend all your time with us either.

But the main way it works for two parents in full time jobs is by both accepting they need to be 50% involved, not necessarily doing identical jobs (my ex husband did the cloth nappy washing for years and 17 years of children dentist appointments, I did girls hair combing, school bags, our tax returns etc.) but having a fair division. I have never in 23 years as a mother been in a sexist marriage and would not have stood it for one day. This is why pre marriage classes are really useful for couples because they get to sit down and talk about all this kind of thing - do you want children, how many, how did your parents parent, who does the cleaning, which of you will work etc etc

honoria, "MrsW, it's just my personal view that children feel and sense a greater level of parental care and 'priority' if a parent is with them more, during the first, formative, pre-school years."

My mother was a SAHM during my early formative years and beyond. But I don't have many memories of her input or presence before I was 5. I can't imagine why (I was probably a thick child) but I would hate to think that her efforts were wasted.

I don't think there is any need for parents to tie themselves up in knots thinking about who is most important in their children's life v the time spent together v time spent in childcare pre-school etc etc. If the child is happy and thriving under the arrangements that working parents have put in place, what more is there to worry about?

The proof is always in the pudding. I only need to look around at the other students at my dcs' nursery and school to say that I cannot tell the difference between the child of a home with one SAHP or dual working parents: they are all lovely, well adjusted, well spoken and nicely turned out little adults-in-the-making.

Blusehoes, no I don't think it's about memories necessarily. It's less easy to measure than that and I don't think that all the love care and input a parent puts in to the baby stage and early years are wasted at all; I think they give an indefinable sense of value, of self worth; it's an 'added' extra IMO, of course children who don't have a parent at home all the time have self worth too. I just think it's important. It's my opinion and I think I'm allowed to hold it

And to re-iterate, I am talking about the early years - I agree with xenia that as children get older it's healthy for them to see parents have other priorities too

also agree that for all working parents it's so important that the parents have an understanding that they are 50/50 - obviously with allowances for one person not being able to be home at this time or that time or whatever; but the basic expectation needs to be that you're doing it together..

so what do you do if you can't do 50/50 at home? My dh travels extensively for his work - he has just left to go to SanFran infact. He is absolutely brilliant when he is here, but about 1 in every 3 or 4 weeks he will be away. He also is only just home for bedtime, so can't physically do the bed/bath routine etc.

I left my job as it also involved travelling, not extensively but 2 or 3 days here and there to Europe/US. I felt we just couldn't both have jobs like this. I also was well paid but not in partner law firm / investment banker territory.

Well done Squiff.

I particularly liked your point 1) and may well flourish it at dh one day, as for some blinkered [you can read that as an expletive] reason he seems to believe he is the only co-parent in the world who has ever had to run that line of "Nothing I do is ever ...". (But he's being perfectly nice at the moment, so will keep up sleeve.)

Incidentally, on the early-parent-bond thing: I did have that, and I remember so vividly the month my mother had to be away from us (minor operation; I was 5) and the misery of knowing that when I came home from school it would be someone else, not her, looking after us. In contrast, my children, used to the mix of me and dh and their nanny, and here & there in emergencies a friend of their nanny's, just do not have the same anxieties. Perhaps it's personality ... but I can't but think it's partly their experience which has made them rounder, more flexible and (ironically?) more secure than I was.

Issy - I'm liking the strategic thinking in point 2.

IMHO this is absolutely key - and its quite subtle, because its not the most obvious things that are the most strategic.

The other key thing, I think, is delegation. Pre children, I used to be quite poor at that. Now, because of the necessity to re-gain about 2 hours to turn an 11 hour working day into a 9 hour working day, I am very good at delegating. Not dumping on a desk with crap instructions and legging it but proper, well-briefed delegation. And guess what? My assistants love it (by and large). I don't micro-manage them, I let them get on with things (which completely goes against my natural, controlling grain) and I am compltely accessible to them and suddenly I have gained a reputation for being a good person to work for.

If you have a husband (or wife) who is away one week in 3 or whatever people either have to put up with that or the husband changes job when he has children (as my brother did) or you both work difficult hours and have a nanny or au paid who can do a few nights a week. I suspect most full time working parents were like my ex husband and I in that you both want and try to be home for bed time even if that means you miss work social things sometimes, one or other of you is out at a work thin 1 - 2 nights a week and on those days you try to ensure the other is home and things change over time. I remember I wanted to bathe the babies every night with the first 3 so we did that. But with the twins the nanny was desperate to do their bath (I think she thought it cute or she'd learned how to do it in nanny school) and we were busy with other children and in fact when I let her I found it was easier to have handed over at 6.30 clean washed babies and bathing them at the weekend satisfied whatever need I had to bathe them and that was fine but when I was 22 with baby number 1 I wanted to do the bath and usually did.

I now don't have any under 5s and it's very very different. In fact I noticed this Easter holiday how much more self sufficient the twins (9) are than say a year ago in terms of their own interests. It's quite sad in a way - I obviously need another baby or a grandchild.

On what you remember under 5 - well obviously if you've been abused at 1 - 5 that damages you forever as anyone who has adopted a child with a bad past will tell you. So how we're treated as babies has a big impact but I don't agree that the person who loves you and you bond with has to be one adult only and has to be the mother. Our children have two involved parents and a nanny who stated 10 years. I see in today's FT an article by Lucy K suggesting managers look at how they handle their nannies and analogies to that (hers stayed 15 years). But if babies can bond and have loving adults and security then I really don't think they are better or worse with a mother at home or a father or granny or nanny at home. My mother isolated us. She had never left me with anyone when I went to school at 5. They collected us for lunch every day until age 10. It had an impact on our ability to socialise as children and it was a bad impact. That is not the reason I always worked full time but her frustration at being home was partly the reason and the fact I'm lucky to do work I like anyway.

Yes, do delegate. A husband a nanny a granny will all do things different from you but we aren't Gods as mothers. We don't always know best. We need some humility to be able to think - yes my husband may do this differently but he's better than I am and I can learn from that.

Amen to what Issy says.

There are only 24 hours in a day regardless of how efficient and organised you are. I work too but I prioritise ruthlessly, and if I am doing any extra time, make sure its a) only if its absolutely needed and b) its at a time convenient to us as a family i.e. DH is available to pick up DS.

Yes I agree that your DH needs to think of your family as a team and do his fair share, but tbh you have a 7mth DS and I find it a bit sad that you are volunteering to do something that will take you away from him one evening a week when you don't get to see that much of him already.

The most important person who requires your mentoring of an evening right now is your DS.

You are probably not doing those other women in business much of a favour by demonstrating that you can have it all and a child, because the reality is that you can't, and my taking on the mentoring, what you are in effect saying is that your career is more important than your child. And yes I know men do it all the time and as long as your child is happy with their carer then its fine yadda yadda yadda, whatever, but you have a small baby and I think it is instinctive to want to take care of him and be there as much as you can.

It gets much easier when they are a bit older. Our DS is only 2 now, but requires much less full on attention when I get home, so it means I can do things once he has gone to bed, or DH picks him up a couple of nights a week.

If it were me, I'd cut right back on the extra (and non paying ) curricular activity until your DS is a bit older, but I'd also ensure that logic applied to my DH as well.

Thanks so much for the replies and the great advice - it's great to know that there are other mothers out there working and finding the right balance.

To the person who asked what I'd do if DS broke his arm while I was in a meeting - of course I'd be out of there like a shot! DH works 10 minutes away from daycare and he'd be there as quickly as possible too. I'd be staggered if anyone failed to leave a meeting (however important) if their child was injured or seriously ill.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to organise anything like the mentoring scheme in lunch-hours, since people just don't take a break for lunch here! I generally have lunch brought to me at my desk - the most I get chance to do is pop out for 10 minutes if I want to pick it up myself. Trying to co-ordinate 30 people (men or women) to take an hour out in the middle of the day would just be impossible. I've worked in this company for 7 years (am now 27) and was head-hunted out to the US a couple of years ago - this is the first time I've been asked to be involved in the mentoring scheme so I guess I just felt like I couldn't turn it down (being completely honest, I really wanted to do it).

Anyway, DH and I had a chat over the weekend and he's accepted that he needs to take on more responsibility when it comes to DS - eg not asking me what to feed him/when to change him/whether he needs a nap even though there's a big chart stuck up on the fridge of his schedule. I've picked up on someone's great idea of putting a post-it note on DS's daycare bag with a list of things that need to be in it, and it seemed to work well last night!

Oh and as for American's being more chauvinistic - true or otherwise, DH is English so has no excuse! What I can say is that in my area of the company, there are very few women working on the trading floor in a trading capacity - they are all assistants or secretaries. Without exception, everyone assumed I was going to be leaving when I announced I was pregnant, as that seems to be the norm over here (in people who can afford not to work). All my colleagues' wives are SAHM, and the majority of them ALSO have a nanny or other childcare help.

Sounds like you're doing great. 50% of most UK professions in London are female but only about 10% at the top are female, that includes women who started when I did in the early 80s when even then we were 50/50 on entry in terms of sexes. SO I don't suppose it is too much different in the UK either although it is changing to some extent and certainly my grand mother and great grandmother both worked and had children (they had to or the family would have starved in those days in poor homes) so I'm not even sure women working is a particularly new thing.

I suspect in the UK there is more of a feeling that women want to work and some don't really feel that satisfied just being at home. I never would have been and I know a lot of mumsnet poster are very happy being housewives or home makers or whatever they want to call it and 250,000 British men are full time househusbands but most people do want to work. I am 23 years on from you with the oldest 3 children at university/college age and I really think this family benefited hugely from my continuing to work full time all that time and after the early years when it's hard having small babies at home it does get easier and it's great not to have shot your career to pieces as many women do irretrievably sadly because of how many types of work are organised however wrong that effect is.

My sister in law sometimes goes away for teh weekend and leaves my brother with the two little children including when they were two toddlers - once she'd stopped breastfeeding. I think fathers being solely responsible for their children for periods of 48 hours is a really good idea in the early stages because it helps them to understand they can do it and gets them a chance to learn to do it their own way, never mind giving the woman a break of course. May be find some friends where both wife and husband work or wife is the main earner. What you don't want to do as a couple is always hang around with housewife type couples so you don't get to see all those families where both people do work.

I've been thinking about the OP a lot, just wanted to agree with Xenia about making sure it's 50/50 with the men. Whether you go back ft, pt or stay at home parenting has to be shared these days I think. On that note, I just wanted to say - give your dh a chance - it takes them a while to get with the program! With my ds1 I had to have a word about your stage when I went back to work - it was getting too much doing everything - all the preparation, packing bags, feeding etc and i have to say, once he got the hang of it, he was great. Now on ds2 we have our areas of specialism (as Xenia also said) and he pretty much does all the food preparation for the children and gets their food bags ready if we are going out. I used to find that really stressful, but after a while you can put a bag together in your sleep - it does get easier. I think you are doing a great job so far and good luck to you!

Well it sounds lke you are doing great - you have to expect a certain amount of teething trouble, and your dh needs to pull his weight. You have an incredibly stressful job, he needs to support you in that, as well as new motherhood.

To be honest working full time with a baby is bloody knackering, without a doubt, and it does feel as if you have the weight of the world on your shoulders sometimes. However, I think the benefits FAR outweigh the downsides. I think it is hugely benefical to children to see both their parents working hard and being successful.

I understand your feeling that you have a lot to prove because you work in such a male dominated environment. I work in aerospace, which although is not as bad as it used to be, is pretty male dominated. All that testosterone is pretty exhausting sometimes...

A poster said above that it is important that you and dh socialise with similar couples - couldn't agree more. I have been to dinner parties where I have had pitying/withering looks when the women have found out I work full time (undertones of 'neglecting your child')

In any case, good luck with all of it!

hello everyone.

found this a bit late

just wanted to second every word of Squiffy's post.

and yes i have the dh who says "No matter what I do it is never good enough" and i will be stealing quoting squiffy's wise words. i also get "I do much more than lots of other men" but that is another thread .

imo&e you need three things to combine two full-on careers with a family successfully :
(1) you need to love your job.
(2) you need excellent childcare that is absolutely reliable.
(3) you need your other half to step up and make it all a team effort - all of it, not simply cherry picking the fun bits.

i have had issues with all three of the above in the last couple of years and am now taking a sabbatical! a good time to be out of investment banking atm i feel!

on the nanny thing... it is possible that two full-on careers won't fund a nanny you know!

when we first had ds i didn't feel we really justify the cost of a nanny, as it would have been more than dh was earning at the time. even though as a household we could probably have managed it, it was a big psychological barrier. just a leetle reminder that fairly full-on careers don't always bring in the big bucks

True but you need to look at future prospects too. When we had our first child I was 22 and in my first job. We both earned about the same and half the nanny's cost was half of each of our net salaries. We still did it because we knew in due course we, particularly I, would earn more, many many times more so it was a temporary investment in a long term financial investment in a career. If you're on the tills at the local shop and that is all you'll be on and earning at 22 and at 65 when you retire then the economics are not quite the same. If you have 3 under 5ds as we did a live out nanny is cheaper than 3 nursery places by the way.

i agree with your general point that when considering childcare costs, protecting the future income stream should be factored in. i always think of it as an npv calculation - almost