Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Teenage girls should be prepared not to expect it all

259 replies

BecauseImWorthIt · 14/11/2009 20:07

here

This has made me really angry.

Where is the education for boys? Why are our future citizens (female only) being told that babies/childcare are their responsibility only, whereas their male counterparts can, clearly, expect to have it all?

OP posts:
muminthemiddle · 14/11/2009 22:39

I think she is actually talking sense, if I had my time again I would have choosen a more "child friendly" career.
As it is I had to give up my career and now find myself working at the bottom of the pile as I had to change course after taking many years off, to look after my children.

Now I am working and knackered and no I do not believe you can "have it all" something always has to give.

WuktersDarkLair · 14/11/2009 22:40

Nothing wrong with telling young girls that priorities change over time. For every woman who is happy to go back to work there is one that isn't. Plenty of people surprise themselves after DC's as to which camp they fall into.

rookiemater · 14/11/2009 22:41

I had an internal cheer when I read the article.

It struck a chord for me and I agree with daftpunk, not entirely sure that the freedom I have to work, look after the home and my child feels entirely liberating to me.

Entirely sensible in my opinion to explain to girls that full on careers and children may or may not work together and to give that some consideration. And yes there are some families where it is the man who goes pt or becomes a SAHD but the reality is this is a very small percentage.

I don't see how teaching children the truth is a crime rather than doing what has happened to my generation which is leading us to think that we can have everything, which isn't realistic.

ravenAK · 14/11/2009 22:41

Yes, it crossed my mind briefly, then I thought, bollocks to 'em.

UnquietDad · 14/11/2009 22:49

Oo-er. Someone who doesn't have children lecturing those who do?

THAT didn't end well on here last time...

JANEITEisntErudite · 14/11/2009 22:50

Hands UQdad a wooden spoon

ravenAK · 14/11/2009 22:51

But why wouldn't it be just as sensible to explain that to boys too Rookiemater?

I've no quarrel with the basic premise that people (male or female people) shouldn't feel they have to put in 18 hours at the Stock Exchange or down t'pit before coming home to attempt a spot of parenting.

However, IME men as SAHPs or PTers probably accounts for 30-40% of the families I know. I'd agree that's high (I mostly know teachers, a relatively 'equal' profession, musos, & IT geeks), but it's certainly not a negligible proportion in the population as a whole.

Nor do I think that the fact that fewer men do the hands on stuff necessarily equates to men not wanting to, or not being capable.

Which is why I think this sort of thing is insidious - it purports to support girls whilst actually driving home the message that childcare is a woman's concern as opposed to a parent's concern.

TheFallenMadonna · 14/11/2009 22:55

I agree with you raven.

daftpunk · 14/11/2009 22:55

....like your style raven

you know the way i looked at it is.... my children... my responsibilitie.....if they grow up to be crazy..(good possibility)..buck stops with me, i wont be blaming the childminder or the nursery......i see so many threads on here moaning about c/m & nurseries...i just think.....stop bloody moaning...your decision to hand your child over to a total stranger....either shut up and except you are working so you can have 2 cars..(priorities)...or look after your kids yourself.....

WuktersDarkLair · 14/11/2009 23:04

I agree with you Raven to a point - I know plenty SAHDs too, and agree that it should be a family decision and not an assumption. However I do think there is an extra dimension for a woman. When men stay home its usually quite a pragmatic decision.
Part of it is probably maternity leave - women have spent a good few months at home and have seen it from both angles. Men haven't and its a greater leap of faith for them to SAH.

EachPeachPearMum · 14/11/2009 23:07

Accept

Some people have no choice but to put their children in nursery while they work, whilst having no cars, actually.

Or do you think they should rely on government handouts to feed their children?

DuelingFanjo · 14/11/2009 23:09

arrgghhh - many people work just because they want to. Some of us just don't want to be SAHMs. WHy do you think that people are always working for some kind of financial gain. It just isn't true for a lot of people.

Maybe you get your self worth from being a SAHM but many people don't.

Iggipepperedfillet · 14/11/2009 23:21

The speech just condones the status quo. It may be realistic, but surely we always hope the next generation will go a bit further towards getting things right?! I'd certainly agree that priorities change post dc, which is why I took a long maternity leave, and subsequently DP took a career break to be (albeit temporarily) a SAHD. But I will continue to fight any system that tells me men can't really be good carers, or that you have to spend about 50 hours at work a week to do a real job.

daftpunk · 14/11/2009 23:22

of course i accept that.....life doesn't always go to plan.....but i don't think it's right that 1000's of children are being looked after by strangers, who, as we all know, are only looking after your dc because you're paying them....they have no real interest in your child, no emotional attachment....

and no, i don't think parents should rely on the government.....only have children if you can afford them.....stoping benefits would stop single women have 6 kids by 6 different fathers...best contraception ever...."no benefits"

but that's another thread...

edam · 14/11/2009 23:22

gosh daftpunk, what a neat little world you must live in. Where everyone can afford for one parent to SAH and no-one has to work unless they really, really want to.

Golly, must tell my dh, he'll be delighted to learn that the mortgage will be paid by a miracle this month without me earning a penny.

Then I'd better go and tell the NHS it will have to manage without all those pesky female doctors, nurses and radiographers who have kids. What on earth are they doing treating the sick instead of looking after their own children?

edam · 14/11/2009 23:25

Oh, daftpunkworld gets even better, love that 'starving children lying in the gutter because giving their mother any benefits would be a jolly bad idea' policy.

Iggipepperedfillet · 14/11/2009 23:25

I'm a teacher. I look after hundreds of kids because I'm paid for it. I do however have a "real interest" in them, and quite often an "emoional attachment" - can't see why it would be so different for nursery staff/childminders!

DuelingFanjo · 14/11/2009 23:28

Daftpunk, Do you Home school?

LeninGrotto · 14/11/2009 23:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Quattrofangs · 14/11/2009 23:35

So this woman, who does NOT herself have children, said that girls had to be taught they couldn't have it all?

In her mind, women can't have it all, so she goes on a mission to teach girls to limit their ambition? To know their place?

I have a full on career and two children and I'm frankly appalled that this women is employed as a teacher, never mind a head teacher.

mathanxiety · 14/11/2009 23:42

So why are girls sent to school anyway? Why bother to teach them anything other than housekeeping skills and childcare tips? Because if you think about it, it's a huge waste of taxpayers' money, and time and effort.

ravenAK · 14/11/2009 23:46

Daftpunk, my dc are looked after, some of the time, by a CM who has now been ds's carer for 5 years. Her emotional attachment to my dc is very obviously stronger than say, my mother's. I don't recognise the 'looked after by strangers' scenario you describe, & if you've always been at home with your own dc, then I'd suggest that the CM/mindee relationship isn't one you're familiar with.

She gets to be at home with her own kids (which is what she wants) because what we pay her means she can afford to do so. Dh & I both get to work outside the home (which is what we want). Everyone's happy.

CM & I are both hardworking mothers who have a mutually beneficial trade-off...exactly as society has functioned for millennia. This notion of women devoting their entire existence to their children wouldn't've been recognised by Mrs Neanderthal Hunter-Gatherer, or even Mrs Pre-Industrial Revolution.

Full time parenting has always been a minority activity, but living in a developed country in the C21st makes it a reasonable aspiration for most of us.

That doesn't mean that some of us wouldn't actually rather work. As lots of people have said on this thread, being a SAHP just isn't something we all want.

sellotapeepatolles · 14/11/2009 23:48

She's the headmistress of a very academic girls school - of course she's not teaching girls to limit their ambition! She's spent her entire life encouraging girls to have high ambitions - one suggestion that they need to be warned that they can't in practice 'have it all' is hardly going to outweigh all that.

I am honestly amazed that anyone who has been through the experience of having children and making choices about resuming (or not) their career afterwards could read this and interpret it as simplistically as telling girls they should 'know their place'.

SolidGoldBangers · 14/11/2009 23:56

OK this speaker was addressing girls so she would be telling them stuff about women's lives but it's more than time that someone addressing a lot of school-leaving boys said, look, get over the idea that you don't need to take care of yourself or anyone else, just find a woman to do the shitwork for you. Most of you won't be working in jobs where the fate of millions (or even one life at a time eg being a brain surgeoun) depend on you so much that you can't do your share of washing up, childcare and community work.

sellotapeepatolles · 14/11/2009 23:57

Someone who goes back to work very successfully using either a partner at home or childcare is not necessarily 'having it all' - just because for some people that counts as 'having it all' doesn't mean it will for everyone.

For women who might want to vary that pattern even slightly - going down to a four-day week, for instance - there are going to be obstacles in their way. If you're going to pick a career where that's just not going to be an option, it's as well to do it with your eyes open. It may even make some people more ambitious - arguably it's easier to be a part-time GP after chidren than do other (superficially easier) careers part-time. So it doesn't even follow that knowing she might want to do something other than a full-time job after children will make a girl less ambitious - it could easily lead to her being more ambitious so as to give herself more choices.