My unreserved apologies

[jabed]

It seems I have upset MN posters.

I am sorry if you have been upset by me. I apologise.

I wont do it again.

Jabed

I managed to find it, Xenia, thanks.

V interesting. At the moment I don't feel that we have enough of a safety net to take the chance of going for it on my own, so have managed to secure one of the poorly paid (but at least paid) jobs instead of bashing my head against the wall. I'm working with a recruiter though, to tap into the hidden stuff (have had no luck at all on my own despite literally years of meaty voluntary stuff and a reasonably impressive cv.) I do all of the late night early morning, fitting it in stuff but no one is paying me for it! I'm assuming that karma will at some point pay out...

I feel as though I'm literally starting at the beginning again, twenty odd years later. So my plan is to work to build a bit of a cushion, and then to get braver. I anticipate this to be a shorter period than last time!!

Our motives are all a bit mixed up though. We have made a permanent move for lifestyle reasons, and now have to make sure we can fund it. I'm not talking about funding anything lavish there are five of us and two dogs living in a 2 bed plus spare, no garden. And we've been late with the mortgage three times this year. Realistically speaking, we'd be financially far better off in the city rat race (dh commutes) but made the decision to opt out. So house prices are waaaaaay higher, and job opportunities far fewer. An interesting mix!

I worked as an LSA in a secondary school for a short while. In terms of individual supports to the children, it was very worthy. In terms of actually being able to do anything to shore up the abysmal sn policies and procedures, it was monumentally depressing. I resigned twice (they wouldn't let me the first time as they were desperate for me to stay) as it was making all my fears about the inadequacies of provision in state schools loom ever larger. And this was a great school. I fought tooth and nail for the kids to get them what they needed, but I was the only one doing it. The entire system is in stasis for lack of cash, and for lack of effort by parents and teachers. We had some great parents and teachers. But for the others, no support for the children they were letting down. No advocates? No support. Terrible.

Your friend is a much more worthy character than I, housework procrastinator! I changed as much as I could, and then had to leave for my own sanity (that and the fact my pay statements made me weep).

@pianomama you are completely projecting, I'm afraid. Xenia has said several times in this very thread that the most important thing for her is that her kids are happy (although she doesn't use the word kids).

Working mothers spend a lot of time being told they are not real mothers, not real women etc. In the same sort of way that skinny women like me are often told we are not 'real'. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Xenia pointing out that real women can be and are, in her case, as successful as (if not more so than) men. The only people who have a problem with that are people who have an agenda of their own, tied in with demonising high earners.

Thats funny because I've never been told I was not a real mother. Being a working mother becomes more and more of a necessity rather then a choice. My youngest DC had been in full time childcare since a tiny baby so I could support other DC school fees etc by going back to work early. You just do what you have to and what you can.I do feel that I've missed his tender years and am jealous of women who spend at least the first year or two being at home full time.
He has done very well so far, I'd say it was my loss, not his. Never felt the need to compete in testosterone filled boardrooms.
Not sure what "being skinny" has to do with all this.

It's the whole 'real women conform to THIS' thing. You don't notice it unless you happen to fall in the groups that the what the young people these days call 'haterz' I believe, choose to fixate on. So, real women have curves. Real women (like the Dove ones?) are big and proud. Real women aren't 'high fliers' (almost always used as a perjorative term) real women are nurturing and caring and, what was it? Oh yes, real women know that 'There are much more important things in life then high earnings FFS

This enforced orthodoxy isn't only applied to women, of course, men are subjected to it too, over different things. And it's just as pernicious for them.

"Working mothers spend a lot of time being told they are not real mothers, not real women etc."

Well whoever says that is wrong. It must be hurtful to hear. But I'm sorry that doesn't give people the right to turn it around and critisise others. And Xenia did not say real woman 'can' earn 1k a day.

It wasn't me who introduced the term "real" woman.

And I of cause agree that it is better to be skinny and loaded then obese and broke.

Still, owning an island doesnt automatically turnes you into a spiritual leader and a female role model.

@procrastinator I know she didn't. I also know she doesn't proof read her posts and is often a sloppy writer. What she should have written is 'some real women', not 'real women can' (because not all real women can, and also, just because some of us can doesn't mean that they do - there are issues around the tension between ability and, for want of a better word, 'permission' - elements of society are loath to let us earn to our potential, and in that sadly we have to include some women not just men ). But I'm perfectly happy to give her the benefit of the doubt on this one since she didn't say ''ALL real women''.

I must say though I'm surprised at the new found rigour in this thread - I didn't notice any of you taking issue with the poster who declared that people (not just women) earning £100K + were self centred, obnoxius, greedy, piss heads and possessed of tumultuous love lives. And that women earning that sort of money valued money above family. She subsequently tried to pretend that she was only talking about people she knew but that doesn't really wash.

I would argue about the role model bit, tbh. There is room for all sorts of role models - high earners, charity workers, volunteers, professionals in niche fields, athletes, as well as parents who stay home and raise children.

I love to get children to do role model exercises - they come up with some amazing people who wouldn't traditionally be cast in that position.

That said, I think even as adults we need role mothers of varying types in order to let us know what our choices really are - and women do really need to know that sitting at home is not their destiny, in the same way that men need male child care and sahd role models so that they know that bringing home endless bacon is not their life work. Anything that moves this society on from gender pigeon-holing has to be a good thing. It opens up equality of opportunity, for fathers to spend more time at home, as well as women to find out what their capabilities away from the family really are. No one should feel trapped by an externally applied role.

There's no law to say that women can't stay at home and sahm. It's a valuable role. It isn't gender specific though. Fathers can quite equally do it once the breast feeding bit is out of the way (or even during, with adequate facilities for expressing and storage). No one should be criticized for sahm, and no one should be criticized for choosing to work ft and earn a shed load of cash. Both are equally valid female choices. And male ones, too.

The "real" thing - real men, real women is never a good phrase to use and of course I don't really mean you aren't female if you don't earn £1k a day BUT the point is that women are told all the time that if they don't XYZ - eg shave their legs, or stay at home as housewives or whatever it is they are not real women so it's quite fun to turn the tables and say something the other way round - real women out earn men, real women love power and success. Women like these things as much as men and we need it said.

I don't have any issues with men at all. I like competition and femininsts of course are allowed to be competitive and like to win and I am sure many women get fed up with being boxed into some category which says - female, pathetic, weak, docile, wants to comply, happy to be bottom of all heaps, made to serve men when we are just as likely to be ambitious, keen on power and money and success and of course you can be like that and spend a lot of time with and love your children and other half just as men do. It just suits a lot of people to keep women in kitchens by suggesting women don't also like doing well.

I don't really write about men or sex on mumsnet because I have my own privacy lines and I respect the privacy of others but it would not be true to say I don't like men. I also live with three sons. Men and women are people.

Wow - a Xenia post I agree with! There's nothing wrong with being a competitive woman.

I think the way women are treated and seen really depends a lot on the women in question. I never felt that anyone has treated me as a baby making machine,cleaner, bottom wiper or a lesser human being then any men around me. Or never I have been dependent on a man - financially,emotionally or any other way. I work in a male - dominated industry but earn just as well if not more then men do. And I do shave my legs BTW not because of any pressure from men but because I dont like hairy legs. I find it really strange when you say women being kept in the kitchen nowdays - you need 2 incomes to support motgage, bills and bring up children.

rabbit - but is it OK to be a competitive mother?

Some people need two incomes for those things. But many don't. And many more cant afford to seek two incomes. Basically, if the vast majority of your social and professional interactions are with people who live in the world where both parents need to work and it is economically feasible for the lower earning one to work (ie the lower earning one has enough earning power to be able to afford childcare etc and still have sufficient income left to make it all worthwhile) then you are less likely to encounter the sort of prejudice we are talking about (although you only have to read a newspaper or A mumsnet thread to learn about it..... It's really not a big secret nobody ever talks about). If your social and professional interactions are primarily with people who don't need two incomes or who can't earn enough to make two incomes feasible (so, people at both ends of the scale) then it will be a very different story.

I would also point out that just because you have never encountered sexism in the work environment that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I spent 16 years in the military.

Even the most competitive woman is externally boxed by gender, particularly in circumstances where finances and circumstances limit work outside of the home (or money coming into it). I think until it happens to you, it's easy to ignore the reality of gendered expectations.

The 'takes two incomes' thing is interesting. It doesn't, of course. Particularly if one partner earns a substantial amount, and the couple chooses to provide a parent based care provision for their children. In those circumstances it is generally expected the primary carer will be the female in hetero relationships.
In couples with lower earnings, it is invariably the woman who stays home as the cost of childcare outweighs in immediate terms her income.

That's not to say that women in the circumstances you find yourself are anything but fortunate. But those circumstances are not the norm.

When I joined the military, I had to sign a contract to say if I got pg or married, then I would be asked to leave. This was in 1991. Hardly the dark ages. Sure, I whizzed through the ranks and did jolly well, and earned a lot more than my staff. But to say that I (or other women) didn't experience any gendered expectations would be fallacious. From 'you only joined to marry a pilot', right through to last week when I was on the periphery of an employment tribunal for gender discrimination, equality has been an interesting aside to that particular career.

It is of course changing for the better, but to criticize anyone for wanting women to have the same opportunities that men have is kind of odd.

Is a competitive mother competitive for her children? Just someone that ensures her children have choices? Or a woman who has children and also a career and is competitive on her own behalf?

There is competitive and there is competitive.

"I'm considerbly richer then you" is silly sort of cometitive.

That's not to say that women in the circumstances you find yourself are anything but fortunate. But those circumstances are not the norm

I would not say so.My circumstances are direct result of what I made my life to be, nothing to do with fortune.

Don't be ridiculous. You weren't born in Korea. That is down to good fortune. And so on. However I would agree that having to have both parents work full time while not unfortunate in the way that people who find themselves in a childcare/low wage trap are unfortunate, can't exactly be described as particularly fortunate either.

Ah, but you can't make choices in a vacuum, it's all about context. I think that blaming others for not being adequate enough to fight against gendered expectations is a bit low, tbh. I'm slightly horrified that you may write off victims of sexual and domestic abuse as being somewhat inadequate for not getting the hell out of there and getting a job? Presumably not, benefit of the doubt, and all.

Sure, there's a certain amount you can do, especially as a naice middle class gel. A daughter raised in a family where early motherhood and staying at home is the norm might need some rather impressive role models to give her the idea that there is an alternative. Particularly where she receives constant reminding of her inadequacies as a woman, and the superiority of the opposite sex. It may be that's the catalyst, but if cleverly done, she may just feel proud of her accomplishments as a mother and believe she is capable of nothing more, whereas her brother has probably been brought up to have nowt to do with cooking, cleaning, and wiping bums, and goes off down the pub to pull a likely looking bird to take the place of his mother (with added benefits).

No, but I wasn't born in UK either. So totally self-made as it were. In fact I obtained my "good fortune" (i.e. uk education ) with 4 small children (in 3 different schools at some point living on my student loan and casual cleaning jobs in between) . The "equal" partner and baby number 5 came later.

So let's be clear - you are saying that all women should work in the sort of mid tier doesn't pay enough to be the sole wage earner job that no longer carries with it gendered agendas and sexism as standard (other than the glass ceiling obviousy)? Ok. You're entitled to your view. However shortsighted it may be.

That was directed to pianomama obviousy......

Ach, meh, I had three kids in three different settings and was a ft student and part time LSA. My choice was either to leave my dh or accompany him when work moved him overseas

But for the choice of partner, we are frankly twins. When I married him, we both worked ft. I worked ft on and off and sometimes pt when dc1 and 2 were born. Dc3 was born with cerebral palsy. Try finding a gender neutral response to full time care for a child with a disability, however right on and fight for your rights you might be. And ultimately, at that point I needed either myself or dh to stay home with her. I used a nanny when she was a bit older, but by that point the damage to my career was done. No one would employ me as they don't understand my cv. I go from having 400 people working for me, to entry level jobs, and back again, and back again. In truth, it's nothing to do with being a woman, it's being a primary carer of children and muffing up your career progression. And dh being in an unenlightened job in a recession and not entitled to paternity leave.... No point in us both being unemployed. The sad fact is that it is still expected to be a woman at home at home with small children. Men do it, but not enough of them for it not to be a novelty. It needs to be 50% before the expectation that women are the child rearers is demolished and everyone (men and women) are free to make their own choices.

I never said that all women should do anything ..
As we are all different. I got pi**ed off at "real women should earn 1K a day and not to be housewives".
Looking after children being reffered to as "bottom wiping" and being married as "providing sex services" to husbands in exchange to food and shelter.