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?

Laura, bollocks.
I know many many people who work extremely hard to just keep their heads above water.
Honestly, bollocks to that.

Can I add that 'power mums' do not have the monopoly on hard work while juggling childcare responsibilities.

Working class women have always worked but their pay and conditions are significantly worse than many white colour professional jobs: 12 hr shifts through the night coming in and looking after young children all day and then a few hours sleep before off to work again. Many have 2 jobs.

Men's work is more highly valued - you see bin men getting higher rates of pay than, say nursing auxiliaries because it is considered hard physical work yet nursing is also physical and leads to back problems etc.

I know thus is about 'power mums' but you should remember that many other working mothers have it tougher in terms of hours and pay.

Yes ubik1 And one of the reasons why there isn't much sympathy for 'high flying' parents is the fact that SOME of them take full advantage of the low paid women.

I thought 'lean in' just meant don't go with the flow of prevailing attitudes, whether that is that a particular role can't be done flexibly or a man can't be a SAHP.

spectacular - while I do not doubt you employed lovely nannies, as do the parents of many of my DD's friends, the "issues" of non-reciprocation largely arise from skill sets that parents have and nannies don't.

FOrgot to say, that yes, all of this is only achievable in my opinion if you have a partner who shares domestic and childcare on an equal basis. Interestingly, this is viewed by my uh sands place of work, where he is also a very senior person, as some kind of miracle!

Also most new work and jobs can be done by email and that enables fathers (and also mothers) to lean in whether they are at home or work

LauraBridges That may well be true if you have a naice middle class job, but for the vast majority of people working in the UK that simply isn't true

Bonsoir, I cannot think of anything that I would do differently from a nanny when looking after other people's children.

Or indeed anything that any non-working parent has done with mine that my nanny would not do.

It's depressing to hear women (I'm assuming the posters are mostly women on this thread, I might be wrong) turning on other women. The issue is NOT that working women outsource (be it cleaning/childcare/whatever - and I know very few working women who leave it to the "Village' (WTF? we don't have time to get to know the Village. Is this just anecdotal or is it backed up by proper evidence?), the issue is that while society has allowed women access to jobs/opportunities by improving so-called women's issues (maternity leave/pay & employment discrimination law) it has not changed expectations of men by one jot. In the last 40 years or so, as women have progressed (albeit slowly) in the workplace, men's lives and their expectations on the whole have changed very little indeed. This equation does not balance. If women are working and therefore have less time at home, working FATHERS have to make adjustments. And I strangle believe most of them want to, but they don't want to lose face at work because society is still not reedy for working fathers who actually have to juggle work and family.
I wholeheartedly agree with some of the comments above (spectacular - I feel like we work in the same place) but I am depressed by some of the anti-WOHM comments. As I am when I read anti-SAHM comments. If we channeled our efforts at achieving real equality instead of trying to justify our own choices by putting down other people's, we would do far better.
There is no reason that men do not share 50:50 responsibility for domestic and childcare responsibilities, other than this is the way it has always been. I wish the government would focus some of their think-tanks and policy-makers on targeting working fathers rather than obsessing over women. Everytime I read I headline announcing a new childcare voucher scheme (or whatever) I despair that it always refers to helping working mothers, and totally ignores working fathers. Like they are covered anyway, because their work will never be impacted by such trivia as childcare. Meaning constant reinforcement that these issues are ours and ours alone. Bollox to that. I am more than a mother, as my husband is more than a worker-bee.
Maybe I should move to Scandinavia ;-)

spectacular - I am not talking about looking after other people's children.

Apologies for the spelling mistakes above.
I also despair that I don't hear any of our female (or male) politicians coming out and attacking this point. There is what feels like some small chipping away around the edges (as mentioned, tinkering with childcare costs) but no-one is standing up and saying, hang on a second, why don't we get the men do do more at home. The legislation is there (men can ask for flex working, shared maternity leave, parental leave etc) but there are not enough role models to allow men to believe they have real choice. I don't have the answers, but there are enough clever people working in Westminster to come up with some ground-breaking ideas, surely.

Therein lies the rub I think Bumble
Women have changed. Men have not.

And can we get them to change? Not much I dont think, and not anytime soon I dont think.

That is part of the reason why I get so I dont know what about there not being a proper dadsnet.
There would no doubt be some reasonable speaking men on there eventually.
But they get such a rough ride on mumsnet, that most dont hang around.
I cant say I blame them. I wouldnt either if I was them.

Society has to learn to work together to change things.

Workplace issues have to be sorted out by both women and men working together.
A tall order.

spectacular. The difference is love.
The love from a parent, either the dad or mum, is different from a love from a nanny.
And the child knows it.

Women have changed. Men have not.

I think men are changing and are, on average, more interested in the nitty-gritty of, for example, their children's lives than they were a generation ago.

These things take time...

I would also add that many working class men take on childcare responsibilities without a murmur - because it's accepted that both parents have to work.

Personally I think free good quality childcare which is not endlessly means tested and better pay and conditions fir childcare professionals (who are, ironically often low paid women) would make a huge difference to everyone whether a 'power mum' or one of us lowly non achievers.

I was thinking of things like availability and willingness to sort out a child's friend who is in difficulty with homework. I'm always available at the end of the telephone (and quite often at weekends or afterschool) for other people's DC whose nannies are just not up to the task. The parents are often entirely unaware that their DC are even asking other people's parents for help because the DC have it instilled in them that they must be "independent" and it suits both the nanny to have the parents believe this is true and the parents who are too busy to help their own DC, let alone anyone else's.

Or when there is some major issue at school that needs tackling - some busy parents live their lives blissfully unaware that other parents are working hard behind the scenes and diplomatically to sort out problems that affect their DC too.

Yy to the issue of SAHP and WOHP being pitched against each other.

And men and women.

Divide and conquer IMO - until well ALL realise this is a problem that affects us ALL, whether we work at home or outside of it, whether we are men or women, nothing with change other than tinkering with details.

Agree that working class men have already changed if rl is anything to go by.Its middle class men on here that go for the old fashioned model with women doing everything.

I agree that there have been some changes with working fathers being a bit more involved (certainly compared to my father's generation) but I think we/politicians need to speed this up. Sometimes things need to be helped along to enforce a sea-change. The dearth of senior male role models who are, for example, working part-time, is as disappointing as the lack of senior female role models. I just thought of something, wouldn't it be great if a senior male politician, took shared maternity leave with his (would have to be working) wife? i.e. took a few months maternity leave to allow his wife to go back to work.
Now that would send a message. Maybe business leaders would wake up. Has any politician done this?
In my company, (big investment bank, invests incredible time and effort on how to attract and retain female talent, never discusses men changing their work patterns, hmm...) I was in a meeting recently and when I asked if the forms/practical processes were in place for men who wanted to request shared mat leave, and the HR manager looked at me quizzically - she wasn't even aware of the new legislation. Businesses are running along safe in the knowledge that their mostly male executives will NEVER request 1-6 months off. This has to change. For us women, it has to change. I want my daughter to interview for jobs where taking time off for family is not lurking in anyone's mind as a factor, because it affects all genders equally and therefore is a moot point.
Right. Does anyone know of a senior male politician who is expecting a baby and whose wife works?!

Because you can't be a 'power mum' without relying on other women on close to NMW to do your dirty work.

This is the attitude that has to change where women pull down other women. With the high taxation in the UK very few families are able to hire help at anything more than minimum wage. I also dislike the term dirty work. It is a huge put down to women who have worked darn hard to reach senior levels in organizations. It is these women who are in positions to bring about change. While I am not yet in a senior position, I do what I can to help those who work for me achieve their goals.

Because you can't be a 'power mum' without relying on other women on close to NMW to do your dirty work.

It's a bit of a double edged sword. You either get to the top by relying on hired help, which is often other women working for minimum wage. Once you're there and visible, you can effect change. Or you don't rely on the cheap labour, don't get as far in your career, and don't get to a position where you can change anything much.

Men who are 'power dads' also rely on cheap or free (their wife!) labour to do it.

Successful people can afford to buy support - I'm not really sure why they seem to want everyone else to be their cheer leaders too.

This argument about women employing other women to look after their homes/children is a distraction from the core issue here. But for what it's worth, it's not women doing the employing, it's families (men and women).
We will never get anywhere if we keep criticising the way other people live. It is incredibly tedious.
Maybe it's easier to abstract ourselves from the debate, and focus on what kind of world we want our sons and daughters to live in. And think BIG ;-)