Would you have had kids if you'd known how tough it was?

[Angiel]

I don't know if I would have, its a bit late now though!!

Harrysmum, I agree, what a shame to steer daughters into careers that might 'let' them work part time in the future. Instead shouldn't we be challenging a work culture that views full time work as the only worthwhile contribution and undervalues work/life balance for both sexes? Bells is right about long working hours and presenteeism and these and other factors meaning that women often give up working after more than one child. I think many women of our generation were told that we could combine our careers and family but once we got there no-one could tell us exactly how we were supposed to achieve it. Or at least, achieve it without the kind of physical, emotional and practical struggles being described here. I don't think anything will change unless work culture dramatically changes though.

LisaLisa, I take your point about a mother missing her children if the father is carrying out the full time care, but do you think fathers might admit to the same feelings too if it were socially more acceptable for a man to say "I'd love to be at home with my kids"? Agree with scummy about men and their ability to carry out mundane tasks.

lisalisa - I must tell you my experience! I have a friend who recently lost his high-flying job. He worked in IT and spent his weekdays working away, staying in hotels. As a consequence he missed the 1st year of his son's life. His wife stayed at home btw, she was more than happy to do this. When he lost his job the roles were reversed. His wife got a job teaching and he stayed at home. Now I don't know anyone who would choose to stay at home with their kids, it is hard work and there is just no getting away from them at all! But he didn't half moan! It was as if he felt as though he was entitled to a job! He felt embarrassed to be out of work whilst his wife was the bread-winner. Other children were put on hold as he didn't want any more until he found a job. In fact he really peed me off! I don't particularly like being stuck at home either, but I get on with it, I make the most of it. But when I pointed out to him that lots of mothers were in the same boat, it wasn't the same - they were women, it was apparently 'easier' for them!

Angiel - I don't know anyone who would say that they feel like they are a good mother. We all feel inadequate, and I blame society for putting too much pressure on us. Not only are we supposed to get our figures back straight away, but we are supposed to have a career too, look immaculate when going out, do all our own cooking, provide our children with adequate stimulation, get them doing all the right things at all the right ages, know where they are and what they are doing 24 hours a day, and be happy and content in the midst of all this! You are probably a far better mother than you think you are. Motherhood does not come naturally to us all, as this thread shows, but so long as you try your best, then no-one can fault you.

Message withdrawn

Very much agree with Bells and WWW about the long hours work culture being a huge factor here. The options for people to follow their family dreams together with work dreams (or just financial survival if work dreams don't come into it) just aren't there. I think that two part-time plus working parents doing equal childcare would work well for a lot of families once the youngest child was considered old enough for full days at childminders/nursery/school but it's a difficult thing to achieve. Agree with Harrysmum that this shouldn't mean pushing girls toward the part-time friendly careers though.

Your IT friend sounds like a berk, Rhubarb, but I bet it did him good and taught him a lot to stay home with his kids for a while!

For the record, in the early days my partner and I used to have frequent fights about who would get to stay home with the kids ("I wanna give up work!" "No! I wanna give up work!".

Doesn't it make more sense to make all careers as family friendly as possible, Lisalisa?

I'm with lisalisa. Far more realistic and far more likely to have happy daughters (or sons). If either of my boys said they wanted to do either medicine or dentistry I'd definitely advise them all else being equal to go for dentistry. Far more flexible, easier to earn a very good wage and definitely less stress. Obviously if they had some great passion to do some job which was completely inflexible then go for it, but otherwise surely flexibility is something to consider?

But idealistic scummy and unrealsitic. Take for example law - because you have to get a certain number of chargeable hours you are always going to have to do a certain amount of work (and like most firms they seem to want their pound of flesh). Making them family friendly introduces a cut in profits, so isn't very likely. Far better to recognise that an encourage our children to do something that allows them some control over their hours so they can make that choice.

Message withdrawn

But jimjams and Lisalisa, it's just awful to me, the thought that we throw in the towel and agree that (paid) work and parenthood are such an impossible combination that they're practically mutually exclusive for our girls only! How can we do that to our daughters? And yet not do it to our sons? I find that such a profoundly depressing thought, whilst recognising the thinking behind it. So if we follow that argument to its logical conclusion then we should make sure our girls are able to cook, clean, shop and housekeep well, but our sons to a lesser extent since we will have trained a generation of girls to expect to do most of it once they have children? Obviously, this is extreme but you get my point...

NO that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that so much work is blatantly family unfriendly for both mothers and fathers I would encourage both sexes to go for dentisty over medicine, osteopathy over law etc etc. Dh hates his job- mainly becuase it is so difficult to get a sensible work-life balance. His firm expect him to sell his soul to them, when frankly he has far bigger worries at home. DS1 in particular would benefit greatly from having his father around more (as would I!). Moving firm probably won't make any difference- so far the three firms he has worked for have been the same, moving career could make a difference. Unfortunately he feels trapped. Because of ds1 I can't work very much so he has to support the family, and so its difficult for him to move direction. Had he know all this in the beginning he most definitely would not have become a lawyer, but would have done something that allowed a far better work-life balance. I'm certainly not being sexist about this. Money talks, so the firms won't change so therefore I would encourage my children (boys and girls) to either be certian they want to throw themselves 100% into something, or if not try and choose something with flexibility. DH says he doesn;t care what they boys do as long as they don't become lawyers! I'm thinking somewhere by the beach, windsurfing school or something .......... Perhaps not as ds1 has dyspraxia

I can't cook and clean myself so I couldn't give any girls I had that role model!

Oh OK then Jimjams

Jimjams are you married to my dh!?Also a lawyer,also struggling with work life balance and the total lack of ay family friendly policies as such(for corporate partners anyway)He also says the same about not wanting the boys to be lawyers!

Having said that I do not think that it is impossible with time recording to make things better,I am a chartered accountant and the firm I worked for before we moved back to Suffolk had a lot a part time women in some depts,in my specialism up to 40% in some groups,we had good maternity packages and a lot returned to work,I am sure that there are some specialisms where it cannot be done and we have to accept that but I'm sure there are more jobs where it could,if some of the neolithic men and to be frank;women, in charge could be persuaded to see the light.DH recently lost a very good assistant because the firm would not be more flexible.

BossyKate (sorry haven't read the whole thread but this is fascinating) - just wanted to say, your first post could have been me talking!
"i would read posts on mumsnet about how easy it was to just take your baby anywhere, and think "is mine from another planet?"

your experience then and now sound very similar to mine

some incoherent thoughts follow...
Actually if we follow that argument through even further, taking up from WWW's point, why bother educating girls at all? Or are we worth educating just to pass on knowledge to our children? And conversely, should we just not bother teaching boys to do domestic tasks, and/or to be caring?

I really don't think one can assume that men and women's attitudes are inherent - we live in a culture which expects certain behaviours of us.

Equal pay used to be considered 'idealistic and unrealistic'. Just because a situation is entrenched doesn't mean it's just. THat's the whole point of feminism IMO.

And incidentally, yes lots of women do want children but I know a number who very much don't, and I'm sure there would be more if there wasn't such a social pressure to have them.

Having read the legal magazines it seems to be endemic in the profession Philly. Met a lawyer on holiday who also said that he'd rather his children weren't lawyers! It's not what I would call a happy profession.

I agree with the idea of encouraging all children to look for flexible careers if that is what they want. But, I do wonder about some men. Working in the Civil Service, a very, very high percentage of women work part-time. I've just (today - hooray ) started working term-times only and the disparaging comments I have had from men are incredible -'Not fair' etc. When I tell them that they could cut their hours (and pay, of course) if they wanted, there is no coherent answer. There is one berk in the office at the moment going on about how he has to work 7 days a week! Why? He has kids as well. Smacks of huge inefficiency to me. I think some men just haven't got it yet. They don't have to do this - especially not in the public sector. I realise flexibility is not the same everywhere but there is a huge macho thing going on with working hours. It's only women who have said, 'Great idea' and are planning to do it themselves if they're not doing so already.

tinker, agree, agree, agree. i'm the main earner in our house and have a high stress dead-line oriented job, but i've reduced my hours and so have two of my (female) colleagues. the men could do the same thing if they wanted, but they don't.

jimjams, if i understand you correctly, you are saying there is a direct correlation between hours worked and billable hours and that obviously makes sense. however, i disagree with your analysis when you say that means that flexible working practices would reduce fees. e.g. if your husband worked 50% of his current hours, we could assume that he would bill 50% less but also get paid 50% of what he is paid now. why not get another employee to work the other 50% of his hours, generate the other 50% of billable time and get paid the other 50% of his salary. net financial impact to his firm = zero.

now, having worked in a client facing role, i know that client business doesn't necessary split out so neatly, however, as someone else has mentioned, chartered accountancy firms (similar client facing roles) are becoming more and more flexible in their approach.

so it is possible there is scope within the law to challenge established working practices if the will is there to do it...

do not mean to comment specifically on your family situation, just on the general observations you have made about working in the law or similar profession.

Brilliant thread - I really related to what Trifle said for large chunks of the first year of ds's life, but for me, things have definately got better and I would definately have a baby if I knew what it was really going to be like (ie the joys as well as the hair-pulling tedium!).

Well, what an interesting twist this thread has taken. My dh has a law degree and did his thingy exams (forget, but they are the professional qualifications) but hated, hated law, so he is a journalist on a small magazine dealing with his absolute passion,soul music. I gave up quite a 'big' career in woman's magazine journalism to go freelance. Honest, I'm not boasting though I'm sure it sounds like it. If we'd both gone ahead with our former career paths I might be earning £60,000 and dh around the same. But we don't. Not close to that between us. But today our day went like this. Ds wakes at ten to six. My turn so I get up and give him breakfast, play etc. At 7.30 I wake dh and go back to bed. Get up at 8ish, dh leaves after 8.30 to take ds to nannyshare and then walks to work. I have a bath and 'commute' downstairs to work. Try to work but still feeling very holidayish. Have pointless row on Mumsnet. Water garden. Make ds's tea. Put washing on. Pick up ds at 5.30 and meet my mum in the park. Dh home when get home. This isn't an unusual day for us. I think I am very, very lucky, but we are also very committed to both being around for our son. Not tryin to be holier than thou, really, really I'm not. I am incredibly lucky to have a job that lets me work reasonably lucratively from home. But I did work very, very hard all through my twenties and thirties to get where I am. I could NOT have done this ten years ago, and I do wish I'd been in a position to have a child when younger, but didn't meet dh until 35, so not that lucky. I think dh and I are very equal. He does everything as a father that I do as a mother. When ds is sick, he takes time off. He baths him every night. When his ex left when their daughter was two, he was a single parent to her for over two years, Monday to Friday, and many weekends. Yet his ex left him for a very wealthy lawyer who is hardly ever at home because she wanted to be a SAHM in a huge house with staff. So much for feminism, so much for equality. I truly think sometimes men can't win. Give up money for time, and your partner leaves you for a rich man, and, eventually, tries to take your kid away too.

Trouble is bk you can't do that and make any sort of career progression and law firms are very hierarchical. If I could work then dh could do that, but the earning loss would be far more than 50% iyswim, so whilst I can't work that is not a possibility. Well I suppose it is, but we've done the downsizing bit already (huge drop in salary when we moved out of London). It has produced benefits- eg he can get home for lunch, but it does mean we really have no more slack.

I'm not particularly moaning, just saying that people can be forced into a family unfriendly waorking practices and if that is the culture there's naff all you can do about it (so if you don;t want to do it, then do something else). Remember law firms are partnerships and partners like to protect their drawings. From what I've seen and from what I've read, and despite the reaosnably high number of women in law, I don;t see it as being family friendly, and it will be years before it is.

despite all of the issues we have and will face with dd (down's syndrome and serious cardiac condition) - you betcha. This past year wilst being the toughest of my life has also been the most fulfilling. I can't imagine my life without my beautiful daughter and her gorgeous smile.

Too tired to post properly tonight but this is a really interesting thread and I agree with Bells comments about long hours culture etc.

I've recently posted this on another thread, it's a comparison of my best mate and me, she lives in Norway (and is a Norwegian national, which is relevant):

'We did the same uni course, which was where we met, she has carried on with her career, working fulltime mostly despite having 3 children. She is able to start work after dropping her children at school (as is normal there, not because she's a mother) does a 'full' day at work and is home by 5 at the latest because she is not expected to be at work after 16.30 and there isn't the work-culture that expects her to put in the extra.

In the same type of industry, I used to leave home at 5.45, drive an hour to work, work until 18.30 (or more often up to 22.00 depending on where the job was up to) drive home, crash into bed and repeat, often 7 days a week. I'm now a SAHM looking to retrain because my old career will NEVER fit with a family (or even a dh and no kids, came close to divorce even then). I'm angry about the study (6 years) I put in to achieve what I did but I'm also thankful that I had dd to realign my world and stop me dying of an early heart attack.

Why should our working lives have to be so extreme ? I know in my old job it was more 'you had to be seen to be putting the hours in' rather than anyone looking at what you achieved.

When I was 30 weeks pregnant my boss said, 'if you find you're getting a bit tired you could leave a bit early if it's quiet'. I once left at 16.30 after starting at 07.00 and never heard the f**cking end of it, started maternity leave soon after and have never gone back.

I LOVED my job but it makes me so angry that there is no halfway point.'

Following on from that, she now works 2 weeks on, 4 off on an oil rig and her dh deals with all the home-making/child issues for their 3 children. He's moved from the rigs to an office based job so she can get the experience she needs to advance.

BOTH parents get up to 10 days a year paid leave per child to cover illness. She had a year's maternity leave on 90% pay per child. She chose to breastfeed until 18 months and was allowed to go home (she had a nanny) to feed her child twice a day.
She can't understand how British society means I feel I must 'abandon' (very technical job so even a year out is a LONG time) my career after I've worked so hard to make it.

jimjames, chartered accountancy firms are also partnerships, yet seem to be making greater strides in the right direction. in fact the big 5 (or is it 4, now? i've lost track) firm i used to work for has been cited in the 100 best companies to work for list for the past three years. i'm sure they're still far from perfect though.

it seems to me it is usually well remunerated law/city or whatever type jobs that are usually cited as being very family unfriendly. while i know that can be true, it strikes me that the main reason for that is the macho long hours work culture and not for any intrinsic reason.

unlike, say emergency services workers, who have to work very family unfriendly shifts because there is a genuine need for 24hr cover in these roles.

as i said, jimjams, i'm not trying to comment on your situation specifically just on the general points you raise.