Why is society so unsupportive of high-achieving 'power mums'?

[KateMumsnet]

Nigel Farage has hurled himself into the debate about equality at work with a typically thoughtful, modern and nuanced view: City women with families are "worth less" than their male counterparts. UKIP-madness-as-usual, you think.  Until you look at polling data which reveals what society really thinks about women in senior roles - and are forced to wonder whether his comments are smarter than they first look.
 
At a Jericho Chambers debate last week, chaired by Zoe Williams of the Guardian, the research company Populus shared a resoundingly miserable take on public views of women in top-level jobs.
 
Of the 2,000 people they asked, very nearly half think that our society has suffered as more women have worked out of the home. A whopping 57% agreed that 'when it comes to the work-life balance, women can't have it all, however much they may want it'.
 
So while many of us blithely assume that everyone sane wants broadly equal numbers of women and men at senior levels of business and government, we may not be right - especially if the women in question happen to have children.
 
A year ago, fed up with a corporate world of retro alpha men, I set out to interview some ‘power mums’ and ‘power dads’ about the choices they've made to get their senior jobs, for Management Today. I was looking for potential role models - but it wasn't that straightforward.  Yes, the mums do generally love their jobs. But they also work long hours, miss their kids, feel quite stressed a lot of the time, feel judged at the school gate and judged at work - and most concede that they are surviving rather than thriving.
 
In contrast, the dads feel no social censure, express few regrets and are free from the racing mental ticker-tape of things they must remember (‘online shop, wash PE kit, plan birthday party, book haircuts, cancel swimming….’) which even the women with the most help keep on a loop. Unlike one of the dads, none of the mums has yet confessed to inventing breakfast meetings to escape the chaos of Cheerio throwing.
 
The response to the publication of those interviews has, if anything, been even more striking - particularly the judgement cast upon the female high-fliers by other women. On Facebook, a woman commented on a power mum with four children and a long commute: "She may be powerful but she is no mother"; an ambitious 20-something friend said: "when I read that they only see their kids two nights a week, I think 'shame on you' - and then I hate myself for thinking it".

In our frank debate last week, the self-confessed 'enlightened' CEO of Costcutter Supermarkets Group, Darcy Wilson-Rymer, was brutal on the business realities of the subject. Four-day weeks don't work - because women end up doing five days for 20% less pay, and then getting frustrated and doing something else. Job shares can work, but are not ideal at the most senior levels. 
 
After the debate, a woman who read about it sent us an infuriated email, arguing that we were missing the point: "it's actually NOT about the Power Mums who have made it in their careers by getting up at 5am, working out, working a 10-hour day, getting back late feeling guilty and employing loads of staff to help them through. Its about the average professional woman who can work maybe 20 to 30 hours a week but who doesn't want power or even career progression”.
 
Which is of course brilliant for everyone it suits.  But - news flash for Mr Farage - some women do want equality and power and progression. Even some who have had a baby, or two or three. And if the men work 70 hours a week and the women half that, it won't happen. Find me a FTSE-100 CEO who works 30 hours, and surely we'll find an exquisitely wrapped carriage clock ticking under their PA's desk.
 
We can spend all the time we like dissecting equality and discrimination, childcare options and our hours culture - but until society puts quality of life and families on a more equal footing with business needs, this is just how it is. 
 
So until that time - unless we agree with Nigel Farage and his mates - we need to be supportive of the women who are making the sacrifices to get to the top, and ensure that those women are heard. If they are not, what hope do we have that our daughters will face less stark choices?

[annieorangutan]

I buy them to as when

[annieorangutan]

I buy them as when I was at school if your mum used to cook them people used to bully you for being a poor family and npt having shop bought. Thats always stuck with me I would never bake cakes for mine.

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

Good for you too, Katnip - sounds like you also make a contribution to the life and funds of your DCs schools

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

Ah annie, that's sad to hear. I think home made are a bit rarer these days, and certainly highly prized, as they should be. Shop bought OK too if there's enough chocolate involved!

[laterthanuthink]

This partially explains why Norwegian children do much better than British ones in the international PISA tests. The other reason is that they pay teachers better and the government doesn't interfere in the curriculum.

I know this opens up a different discussion, but it also shows that Norwegian children seem to thrive in a culture where the family is at the heart of society and people are helped and expected to live a balanced lifestyle.

[Ubik1]

it's interesting you bring up Norway. up here in Scotland the SNP wants to make it compulsory
Nicola Sturgeon said an SNP government in an independent Scotland would bring in laws to force big firms to keep 40 per cent of their top jobs for women.

Norway has a law requiring at least 40 per cent of public limited company board members to be women. The Government has already attempted to ensure that 40 per cent of public board appointments are reserved for women.

However, Ms Sturgeon said the move could be extended to private firms to boost female representation on private company boards as well.

She said: “We are still underrepresented in the governance of companies and public authorities.

“A stronger voice for women at the top table will help ensure that the policies that flow from these boards challenge inequality rather than perpetuate it.

[Ubik1]

Sorry...compulsory for 40 per cent of public limited company board members to be women...

[dsteinway]

I'm a biologist and I personally think society struggles with the concept of women going back to work etc because it seems so anti biology. Not saying that's ok, just that it is a hard wired response. I mean we carried our babies for 40 weeks and we literally can provide a source of food for them, so why would we want to leave them. Babies are biologically more bonded to their mothers, it's just a fact. I'm a very career oriented person though so I totally get that it's mind numbingly boring for some to stay at home etc. I personally don't see how women return to work so quickly by choice because I was so exhausted all the time. I could not have worked, my kid didn't sleep through the night until 18 months. I was a zombie. So I say kudos to the high flyers, I think they make us look brilliant. You go girlfriend, etc

[BoffinMum]

LOL I met my DH in a tapas bar and he didn't have a degree.

[breatheslowly]

Bonsoir - that is a really interesting point. Locally we have mixed independent schools which were previously either boys or girls schools. I feel uncomfortably about sending DD to one that was a boys school due to the continuing imbalance in numbers. Though I am not quite sure why that bothers me, I just feel it might not be the right environment for DD (or maybe any girl). Perhaps my own fantastic education at a girls school makes me wary of DD being in the minority. However the ex boys school has far better facilities than the ex girls school. I still remember my mother's disgust that my school fees were substantially lower than the fees at the next door boys school.

While I am sure that the debate about a handful of independent schools might seem irrelevant to the issue of high achieving/long hours working women, I bet that a disproportionate number of them went to all girls schools. Though whether this is causative or a reflection of the options for selective education, whether fee-paying or state, I'm not sure. As education becomes increasingly mixed, we may possibly miss out on creating confident, hard working women.

While I don't particularly want DD to become a "power mum" as it doesn't appeal to me, I am attracted to the ability of a school to produce women who can see it as an achievable choice for them.

[BoffinMum]

He had a great arse though

[BoffinMum]

Breatheslowly, a lot of us are saying that in relation to the demise of single sex education, yes.

[crazzzzycat]

Young mum was interviewed by Forbes last week. Talks about balancing being a mum with being a lawyer AND running a number of businesses (UK girl but headline was "Mom entrepreneur" or "Mompreneur" or something like that. Maybe someone can find link (I'm on my phone). Hugely inspirational but essentially I think she concluded she couldn't do it without her stay at home husband...

[emmyloo2]

I think "power Mums" aren't supported because, as someone has said upthread, it goes against societal conditioning. We are conditioned to believe that women should stay home and look after the children, particularly babies and toddlers. While there has been some progress, we still have a long way to go and to be honest, I am not sure we will ever get there.

It's a really complex issue because ultimately I think both women and men have to make choices and have to make sacrifices. It's not simply a female thing. Men also have to make choices concerning their careers. I see so many men in these senior roles, particularly in legal private practice, who work incredibly long hours, would never be home for bedtime with their children, and have SAHM. It will be these mothers who then judge me because I work full-time and have done so since my children were tiny babies. They don't seem to apply the same judgment to their husband though, who does about 10% of the parenting.

My DH and I really do "have it all" as that term applies to us. We both work FT in quite senior roles, but very much work only 9-5 in the office (and then from home in the evenings or early mornings if required). We completely share the parenting and domestic duties. It's a partnership. I don't consider myself a "power mum" at all. I am just like my DH - work full-time with two children. We are just normal people. Neither of us would want to have a role which required excessive travel or long hours at the office because we value our time with our children. But I certainly did not want to stay at home and look after the children full-time, nor did he. So we have a good balance. I hear all the time "I don't know how you do it?" yet no one asks my DH the same thing.

Until men share an equal load at home, things won't change. It's needs to change at the ground level. I hope we are setting a good example for my DS and DD by showing them both Mum and Dad work and have careers and both Mum and Dad clean and cook and make baby food. My husband was making baby food yesterday. That's completely normal for us but I can imagine it is a rareity in a lot of households. That's where the change is required.

[Bonsoir]

"As education becomes increasingly mixed, we may possibly miss out on creating confident, hard working women."

I'm not sure about that - I don't think it stands up to international comparison. Many countries abolished single sex education a long time ago and women have flourished since.

[LauraBridges]

emmyloo, similar to many couples who work full time. In fact I think that's the norm where both work full time. You usually try at least one of you to get home on time.

Someone suggested above it could be hard to understand women going back to work quickly full time wanting to. We do exist (just as men who go back quickly exist). We aren't forced into it. It's not that in an ideal world we'd be a home. We just want to get back quickly and think that benefits us and the family.

[stealthsquiggle]

Bonsoir - we will do if we don't get it right. There is something going on in the UK education system that causes girls to opt out of STEM subjects between 11 and 14. When I talk to women across Europe (and, interestingly, especially the Middle East) about this a lot of them look at me blankly as STEM courses are >50% women in their experience. I don't know what it is that is different, but there is something

[wordfactory]

stealth from the perspective of having boy-girl twins going through their GCSEs at different single sex schools, I can only say that the style of teaching is very different.

In those early teen years it seemed to matter a great deal (and this would chime with your observation about girls dropping out between 11-14). Years seven and eight were key, I think, for the girls.

[Bonsoir]

stealthsquiggle - that trend has nothing to do with single sex or mixed education and everything to do with the fact that children are allowed to opt out of core subjects in the UK whereas most of the sane world doesn't let them!

[stealthsquiggle]

The fact that all DC are allowed to opt out (wrong, I agree) doesn't explain the gender imbalance in which subjects they opt out of, though.

[Slipshodsibyl]

I disagree with the reason for 60/40 boarding proportions being that girls take over. I believe heads would be happy for girls to take over if it helped their exams results along, which is part if the reason they started to take girls in the first place. I do wonder if too many girls might be seen by some to over feminize the traditions and values of the old boys' schools, though I don't see this is the case.

I think the reason is because parents are far less keen to board girls than they are boys. It is reported that parents see boarding as fostering independence and that they prize independence in sons far more than in daughters.

I know a significant number of families where the boys have boarded and the girls have attended day schools or where boys are paid for and girls not. The reasons given are several (each child is different etc etc) but even if one believes them entirely, there is still an idea that girls are different and are better cared for within the family.

I know quite a lot of people my age from various economic and educational backgrounds whose parents have explicitly and confidently expressed the idea that the education of boys is more important than that of girls. Times have changed but There is a part of me that feels that that idea is still implicit but unspoken or explained away by the notion that their needs somehow differ.

[Bonsoir]

The gender imbalance shows up in the same way in every country as soon as DC are allowed to make free choices.

It's called innate biological preference.

[Bonsoir]

I think that boys and girls do not have identical needs (on average) and that, perhaps, it is harder to cater to boys' needs at home than it is to girls' needs, particularly in restrictive urban environments.

[wordfactory]

But if it's innate Bonsoir why do we not see the same trend in single sex schools.

In single sex schools we do see girls choosing and excelling in STEM, and boys choosing and excelling in MFL etc

[Slipshodsibyl]

Quite possibly Bonsoir. But this would explain the imbalance of girls/boys at boarding to schools and suggests the heads are telling the truth about parity of applications wouldn't