Guardian questionnaire on "having it all"

[LurcioLovesFrankie]

The Guardian has a questionnaire on the myth of having it all (annoyingly, no scare-quotes round "myth", but more on that later).
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/22/women-have-it-all-debate (no, I'm not the journalist who's set it up, before anyone asks).

I thought it might be interesting to debate here (and also draw people's attention to it in case they felt like taking part.

So here's my thoughts. "Myth" really should be in scare quotes, because without them it seems like we've all agreed to the claim that 70s feminism was wrong to say women could "have it all" (whatever that means) and we tacitly agree with the backlash claim that we can't - we need to decide what to prioritise (generally taken to mean women either have a high-flying career or have children but not both, but feminism - to be understood as choicy-choice "feminism-lite" - is now reduced to having the choice of one or the other. In other words you can choose, but from a limited range of options which suits the current patriarchal set-up).

So on to the "myth" itself. It's quite seductive when you first hear it (at least it was to me as a rather naive 20 something year old back in the 90s) - juggling career, children, etc. means you spread yourself too thin, and burn out. You can't simultaneously have all 3 of the following:

1. Children to whom you pay enough attention;
2. A supportive, life-enhancing relationship with another adult;
3. A job which provides you with economic self-determination (note I've phrased it this way rather than the more common phrasing of "rewarding career" because I don't want to have this discussion side tracked into accusations of "ivory tower feminism" only for the educated middle classes - I think that what matters here is that within a capitalist society, you have to be able, at least potentially, to earn your own way, because not to be allowed to do so puts you right at the bottom of the heap in terms of socio-economic status).

So here we are, as women, being told that it's unrealistic to have all 3 simultaneously. But (and this was the real lightbulb moment for me when this shit first started appearing in the media in the 90s, as part of the backlash that Susan Faludi documents so well) 50% of the population- the male 50% - has the right to try for all 3, and that right is never even questioned.

So I want to say it loud, and say it proud, yes it's not wrong for a woman to have it all in this sense. But for that to happen, 3 things have to be in place:

1. Decent, affordable childcare, if necessary subsidised. After all, we have free public education in this country, on the understanding that educating our children benefits society as a whole - why not subsidised childcare on the basis that putting a framework in place to ensure women's economic independence benefits society as a whole? (I know that it benefits the patriarchy to keep women financially dependent, but that's precisely what I want to challenge.
2. An understanding that domestic work has to be shared equitably for this to work - which is why (see the long thread on housework) this is a feminist issue.
3. A challenge to our long-hours culture. There's ample evidence to show that this has nothing to do with productivity: www.igda.org/why-crunch-modes-doesnt-work-six-lessons. Productivity drops off beyond about a 40 hour working week - you start making so many mistakes that you end up spending more time fixing them than you would have done if you'd just worked a sensible length day in the first place. So presenteeism isn't about getting the job done, it's about corporate dick-swinging. It's a mechanism of social exclusion and of ensuring ridiculous corporate loyalty - make sure that real people who want to spend time with their families can't do the job, and borderline sociopaths who'll happily stay in the office 8am to 9pm get on in your company.

Sorry this is so long, it's something I've been musing about for a while, and the Guardian questionnaire has spurred me into action. (Incidentally, if there are people out there who don't want all 3 of these, then fair enough - my objection is to the powerful voices in the media telling us that it is a "myth" to think that anyone could have all 3 simultaneously).

Yes I agree - I think you have to be careful with formulating the childcare policy as it can work out regressive if richer people end up getting greater childcare subsidy, or it can be free/cheap childcare set up in a limited way that traps women in low paid work.

But overall yes!

Sounds about right. The article is disappointing because it never once mentions what men need to do to make it possible. I think it's a myth that women can 'have it all' without men changing their behaviour, both at work and in the home.

Yep, can you imagine an article, Can men have it all? No. Pointed it out in today's suggestions here: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/26/you-tell-us?commentpage=last#end-of-comments

www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/16823902
Actually I think this links to the comment better, rather than the top of the page.

Interesting point, Himalaya, about trapping women in low paid work. How do you see that working out in practise? I know that it's a problem with tax credits paid to bolster income, in that those simply subsidise employers to pay a less-than-living wage in the knowledge that the taxpayer will pick up the tab. And arguably the same could happen with free childcare. But as I understand it, at the moment, even with tax credits to make up income and to pay part of childcare, a single woman who's only in a position to go after a minimum wage job can't afford to do so because she couldn't afford the contribution to childcare that she'd have to make. Or is your worry that it becomes another stick to beat low-income women with - a woman who feels that her children are best off with her as a SAHM for the first three years is now told "no, take a minimum wage job and put your children in the free nursery we're providing"? Because I look at threads in the relationships section and see women who feel themselves to be trapped in abusive relationships for economic reasons because of the crippling cost of childcare, and they'd be helped by this, I think. I'm interested in your views of what the potential poverty traps are, because this shouldn't just be blue skies thinking, it's something that should be pushed as policy (next time we have a government that doesn't hate the poor).

Plenty - I agree that the key is shifting the focus onto men's behaviour, and that's what I think is so problematic about the way the whole debate is framed (Overton windows again?). But I think we need to keep jumping up and down and saying over and over (to coin a phrase from undergraduate moral philosophy courses) "is" doesn't mean "ought". Just because society is currently set up to make it very difficult for women to have a family and economic independence means it ought to be so. We can campaign for better. Because I really think this is the bottom line here - we may have the right to our own bank accounts and mortgages, unlike my mothers generation - but the "myth of having it all" mythology is actually an act of propaganda designed to make us accept that the price we should pay for having children is to voluntarily give up part of our economic automomy - be that having the chance to have a job at all, giving up on promotion prospects and finding ourselves on the mommy track. And we need to keep reminding ourselves (as the other thread on housework did) that the personal is the political - whether your DP does his fair share of the housework most definitely is a feminist issue.

Trishawisha - exactly. No one ever poses this question about men. And that's feminism 101 - when someone makes a generalisation about women, ask how the same generalisation would look if applied to men.

I have no time for men who claim that their hot shot careers are so massively important it's ok for them to disappear at the crack of dawn and reappear expecting their refreshing G&T by their elbow after a day in the city screwing up life for the rest of us. I think it's a different issue where there's a long day for a reason, such as asurgeon performing a lengthy operation - but even then, I was struck by the surgical team in the recent Great Ormond Street series having a break mid op - massively sensible, and vital if you're not going to make life-threatening mistakes. All the research suggests that it's physically impossible, even if your job is vitally important, to concentrate properly for more than a few hours at a stretch or about 8 hours in 24. So (my experience talking to people who work in long hours cultures) in reality the people who think they're working 14 hour days are actually "networking" (aka gossiping about their golf handicap) and other such goofing off techniques for a substantial part of that time - they're not working productively.

I'm lucky to work in a place which is very good about work-life balance, and I know quite a lot of men who work part time and share child care - 2X4 day weeks, with 3 days of nursery care seems to be the most common pattern.

Lurcio -

I was thinking more in terms of free nursery places, subsidised after-school clubs, workplace nurseries etc.. which make one kind of limited childcare free or cheaper than other alternatives.

On one hand this is a good thing for people who want to use that type of childcare anyway, but on the other hand it makes other kinds of childcare appear more expensive in comparison. So it tends to keep women attached to jobs that fit with the childcare, rather than providing childcare that fits around the jobs that women might want to do (and in which they could progress).

In general I think working tax credit type support is better (if generous enough) as it can be used to pay for more different types of childcare that a family needs.

The trouble is in a family where there is already a working partner earning a good wage there is no childcare subsidy for the other parent. So unless people get in the habit of offsetting childcare costs against both wages then they end up saying 'its not worth it for the woman to work'. If you tackle this with subsidy it ends up being regressive, as average earners are subsidising high earning families.

I think most people agree that decent affordable childcare is important, which is why government policy has been moving in that general direction. Tax credits are a subsidy that allows employers to pay low wages, so the question is how do we subsidise childcare. Should it be redistribution through the tax system as we have now or should we just ague that children need childcare not mothers. I haven't met a mother yet that needs childcare!

A women who chooses to work and maintain some economic autonomy finds that legally she has less autonomy if she is part of a relationship because the tax and benefit system calculates tax credit and child tax credit awards on combined salary. If we continue to argue that mothers need childcare we perpetuate the idea that the mothers salary must cover the childcare costs.

In short I think all childcare should be free, not just partially subsidised. Women should be treated autonomously in regards to tax and benefits which I think would make for a fundamental shift in the relationship between men and women, mothers and fathers. One of the most difficult positions is that of the single mother, wanting autonomy and to escape dependence only to find that society expects her to go cap in hand to her ex through the CSA or to have the paltry maintenance she might receive spent on childcare payments because she wants to work. Why do we have the CSA? not because someone sat around and thought, hey lets make men pay but because in our advanced capitalist society the elite will not bare the burden of supporting a poorer man's progeny.

I love your first post Lurcio. As a woman who has all of your first 1,2,3 by virtue of also having all of your second 1,2,3 - it seems ridiculous to me that people are even writing articles like that in 2012. Or why - if you want to ponder the difficulty of having a high flying career and a loving family - it should have anything at all to do with your gender.

I've just read that Atlantic article - it's got the most ridiculous premise:

She says this:

"My workweek started at 4:20 on Monday morning, when I got up to get the 5:30 train from Trenton to Washington. It ended late on Friday, with the train home. In between, the days were crammed with meetings, and when the meetings stopped, the writing work began?a never-ending stream of memos, reports, and comments on other people?s drafts. For two years, I never left the office early enough to go to any stores other than those open 24 hours, which meant that everything from dry cleaning to hair appointments to Christmas shopping had to be done on weekends, amid children?s sporting events, music lessons, family meals, and conference calls. I was entitled to four hours of vacation per pay period, which came to one day of vacation a month."

And then says that the job was:

"a job that is typical for the vast majority of working women (and men)"

The 'vast majority' of working people do not have jobs that are remotely like that........

Mini -

Free childcare is also a subsidy that allows employers to pay low wages. It doesn't make a difference whether it is delivered as a tax credit or as a public service.

(...I'm not saying there shouldn't be childcare subsidies...I'm just saying that it is by its nature a subsidy which enables people to work for low wages, I don't think you can get away from that)