Do working mothers need to have hats taken off to them?

[binkie]

I went last night to the Fawcett Society's Inspiring Women event.

Biggest impression was of the vast range of women's differing concerns, of course; but one thing struck me (& the long-term MNer I went with): the panel included only one woman (Meera Syal) with children, and there was a point where with holy hush the other, childless, women said they took their hats off to mothers who work (you know what I mean, paid jobs, outside or from home, that mean you can't do all your own fulltime child-rearing) and that they Couldn't Have Done It Themselves.

Now that bothered me. My life is definitely a bit complicated, with a fulltime job, a 6yo and a nearly-5yo, but it isn't impossible, it has masses of ups and downs but, you know, it's not always even that tough. Obviously it is a matter of personal circumstances - but I was pretty surprised by the air of melodrama.

What do y'all think?

all mothers need to have hats taken off to them

I miss the Fawcett Society as well

...in answer to your question - 'No', no more so than any other type of mother

Sounds like they were all desperately trying to be pc.

Its all about different lives, rather than harder I think...

Your life sounds much more complicated than mine, but just 2 children instead of one (even without the job) would make it more so. I'm always amazed at how lone parents manage, but still, not in a CHDIMyself kind of way, just in a "its so different kind of way".

You learn to do it.

So yup, way too much melodrama

Agree with Ms Wong. Are you sure there was not a unspoken hint from the childless women of "couldn't have done it myself...you loon..."
Heck, Suze, I miss the Fawcett Society and I work round the corner from their magnificent Library and Archives. I really ought to get out more, sounds like a very interesting event Binkie.

hmm. i have 3 small children and working is a survival strategy. would not have had the 3rd if it had meant being at home full time.

i think the Fawcett society women are trying not to ignore motherhood, but being rather clumsy about it. it's the old feminist dilemma. ignoring the pulls of motherhood on women or over-empahsising them.

Aha, this has finally crystallised what was bothering me: it's that the women being presented as inspiring (the others were Betty Boothroyd, Helen Oyeyemi and Wendy Hall) all had public credentials - as if you can't be inspiring without a public platform, and that angle is going to exclude most SAHMs.

Wendy Hall's nominee for inspiration was Dame Stephanie Shirley, who to my shame I had not heard about. I think she should be added to that list we had of modern role models.

No more than any other mothers. All mothers work had whatever their choices.

Oh, except those that have school age children, don't work and don't do anything with their time - good on them if that's what they want to do and they can afford to do it, but I don't have admiration for them as such.

Those I admire most are single parents. Without support I really don't know how they stay sane.

LOL at "couldn't have done it myself you loon..."
I get a lot of this from friends, ex colleagues who talk about my decision to be a SAHM in hushed and revered tones - arent you marvellous! well done you! I couldn't do it! like I am some kind of sainted martyr - with a definite undercurrent of - you are clearly clinically insane....

..or an undertone of 'God, aren't you bored? I'd be bored' - i.e. I'm far too clever to do what you do, I need stimulation, my brain would melt, Oooh, I'm so intelligent and you must be brain dead!

but this thread isn't about SAHMs at all. it's about working women with children and working women without.

just pointing out the original post was not just another SAHM/WOHM debate. more about how feminists see motherhood.

maybe Meera Syal was fulfiling a three-fold tokenistic role and they thought they had better give her a nod but didn't want to mention her colour or profession so went for the mother bit

oh suzy you cynic!

Mandrake, I'm starting to think it is in a way about SAHMs, though - in that it's their perspective which was most missing from last night's event - but in that I exactly agree the issue is the place of motherhood in feminism.

What a great sounding event.

I've met Dame Stephanie Shirley a couple of times (I think everyone calls her "Steve", they certainly did in the context in which I met her and that was relatively formal) and she is an interesting role model.

I sort of agree with you when you say it isn't always "that" tough. My life (DH and I in both very full time WOH jobs, 4 and 2 year old DCs) is surprisingly ok when everything is running smoothly, although I suspect I have "sacrificed" some things that other people take for granted (but which I feel are an ok trade off). We've also coped with the usual bumpy scheduling (like last week, when DH was abraod for 3 days and I had to go to a critical 8am meeting on the other side of London), but I'm not sure exactly what we would do if, for example, our nanny broke her leg or had a bad, 2 week dose of flu.

I read somewhere a proposition that you can have 2 out of 3 of a full time job, children and a good social life, and I do tend to agree - in my case my social life does tend to take a massive back seat to everything else, and things that I would really like to do - like go and listen to talks at the Fawcett Society don't happen, for a whole variety of reasons, from DH being abroad to my nanny wanting to go out that evening to not really having any friends who are up for that sort of thing.

Must admit I have found working (part time) a soft option. Leave kids at Nursery, swan off to work - don't have to cook meals for them all day or clean up after them. Lots of coffee and chat with colleagues.

However I have resigned recently to become a SAHM (working until end of December and then finish)

(Do you know why she's known as Steve? Because she set up a computer consultancy from home, so that she could care for her autistic child at the same time, and she found that her tenders for work were accepted if she put "Steve" on them but not if she put "Stephanie".)

HMC - will look forward to hearing about whether you enjoy the change

mandrake/fennel

oh go on then HMC I'll admit it too
I went back for a short while when dd was about year, full time. (only one child mind you)
compared to being at home with her it was a walk in the park.

fennel - you've changed your name! I'll probably be committed after a couple of months at home with the anklebiters. I'm not a 'natural' when it comes to motherhood, but I think my dd in particular (sensitive and complex child that one!) would benefit from me being at home with her...

buffy - we'll be shot!

Hi binkie - I think that working mums probably have to prioritise and stick to rigid schedules more than SAHM mums. The "optional" stuff falls by the wayside. They probably are more productive because they don't have the option of spontaneity, and with deadlines to meet can't put things off as easily. If I was in an office, I would probably feel much more anxious if the carefully calibrated balancing act that meshes work/childcare/school/children was disrupted by illness, holiday, behavioural issues etc (don't really know as I haven't been in an office job since dd was born).

So, in my book, working mums probably have more juggling to do, and perhaps feel more conflicted when demands of children/work are at odds. Does that make them more admirable, or worthy of public recognition? I would say this - it probably is much more difficult to be a working mum at the top of the game in a competitive office situation. Those jobs can, and often do, demand round the clock availability or else the level of "commitment" is questioned. So to be a successful executive, and a successful mum is much harder, I think and perhaps worthy of recognition. But, then again, it's working mums who are far more likely/able to draft in the help they need (in the form of a fabulous nanny!) to enable them to juggle the demands of two separate worlds....

An aside: as a former executive with alot of responsibility and glamour in my work, it grates whenever I must fill out the "occupation" blank on any sort of form - the "who I am now in the world" vs the "who I used to be". It's my own ego issue, and perhaps reflects that I, deep down, think that being "just a mum" somehow isn't worthy of admiration....but that is completely my own issue, that funnily, I don't project on to other sahms.

I agree about sahm mums not having any type of public platform for recognition - but who would judge, and what would the basis be for "exeptional"? I will say that the only method I have of judging how well I'm doing as a single mum is whether or not dd seems happy. That probably gives her far too much power, as the focus is exclusively on her, and is likely to make her think the world revolves around her. Another thing to be wary of ......

Real stream of consciousness stuff - sorry it's not more coherent!

Hats need to be taken off to anyone who achieves in their professional or domestic life - or who tries to achieve - or who struggles along underachievingly....

Working motherdom can be a lot easier than SAHM-dom if you have enough support. I have known quite a few working non-mothers who knock themselves out working 12-18 hour days and get a lot from it in terms of material things which some working mums choose to do without because they don't want to/can't put in the hours.

At the end of the day, it comes down to choice (excepting those women who want children but can't conceive, of course.) There's no need for melodrama, we all generally speaking choose the course we want in life from the moment we decide to have kids and shouldn't expect medals. I think the discussion would be a lot more fruitful if it concentrated on how society can help MEN who work and have kids achieve a better work/life balance... that would automatically help women too, and make employers realise that it's not just women who have kids.