Had it up to HERE with "having it all"? Please come and help Viv Groskop with her Mumsnet Academy Family and Feminism course

[VivGroskop]

Hello. I'm Viv Groskop and I've been asked by the Mumsnet Academy to run their Family and Feminism course. [MASSIVELY UNSUBTLE PLUG - THEY ARE THE BEST KIND OF PLUGS]

And I need your help.

The idea of having enough of hearing the phrase "having it all" will inform much of the content of the course (currently under INTENSE preparation).

In connection with this bugbear, one particular thing is driving me mad. Can we please solve an argument between me and an old friend (ex-friend?) inspired by me FINALLY reading Anne-Marie Slaughter's piece in The Atlantic in its entirety. Which was probably a mistake. It's the 15,000 word article about (Not) Having It All: why she gave up her job to actually do another full-time job but closer to home because she felt like she was missing out on her two (teenage) sons and/or letting them down. Two weeks after publication this piece has now had over 1.3 million clicks and is one of their most popular pieces ever.

Loved a lot of what Slaughter said and found the whole thing fascinating (although it has taken me about three weeks to read it) but I don't agree with her final analysis. She says women are basically "nurturing and caring". And she implies that in order to be feminine you have to be the nurturer, you can't just go out to work and leave your children at home.

Slaughter claims that (a) if mothers don't give in to their nurturing instinct that they will be unhappy and (b) men are not able to give children the same kind of care. Or at least that's how I read it.

My friend who gave up a job she didn't like very much to be a stay-at-home mum says Slaughter is RIGHT and that this is why most women give up work or cut back on work -- because they can't reconcile the pull between home and work and they want to be in charge of everything at home and not give it up to a man.

I say she is WRONG. Most women do not try to work in Hillary Clinton's office whilst their husband and children are living in a completely different city (as Slaughter did). Most women recognise that life is about compromise and they work hard at finding a way to feel OK about the choices they have made. Most women do not feel de-feminised by their partner doing childcare, instead they are glad of it.

Having thought about it rather too much I am now worried, however, that my friend is RIGHT. And possibly a lot of women do feel that if they work (or work too much) they are not being nurturing or caring enough? Or something? By the way, my friend has not read the article and refuses to because it is too long. Here I see her point. But I am also thinking of getting her a place on the Mumsnet Academy course as a birthday "present" just to annoy her.

[kickassangel]

I was thinking about this today and started musing about a few examples I know of people that are v successful although not materially rewarded. People who are good writers, have had work produced for the BBC and are prob I the top 10% of their field, but still earn peanuts. Just wondering where people like artists, writers, poets etc fit within this debate.

[DowagersHump]

Great post kickassangel. And it comes back to my earlier point, that if men have no motivation for restructuring our society, then nothing is going to change.

I'm not arguing that we as women should sit back - far from it. But we need to challenge, challenge, challenge at every turn. I'm also reminded of this cartoon about the history of race relations in the US (thanks sAf)

[Emphaticmaybe]

kickassangel - agree with a lot of your comments.

It also makes me cross when the arguments of 'if only you were more hard-working/committed/driven/confident' are used as explanations why people are not successful - like wealth, privilege, great education, stable family life and general good luck are not major factors in a person's success.

Of course there will always be the 'against the odds' success stories but for those in that category it's important to remember why you are in a minority and acknowledge the inherent inequalities in a patriarchal, capitalist system. It's not enough to say, 'well if I can do it then anyone can,' because that is blatantly not true and doesn't actually change anything - it is the worst kind of individualism.

[messyisthenewtidy]

kickassangel I think you've summarized perfectly the interaction between capitalism and patriarchy and how they support each other.

[kickassangel]

Met (if I may be so familiar) please don't go. I like to hear different opinions, even ones that are blatantly wrong make me think from a different pov.

Actually, I'm glad that there are women (I assume) on this thread who are high flyers. I sometimes wonder if they even exist, having experienced opposition from all quarters in my life.

[kickassangel]

I think we're getting into a situation where there is an overlap between the demands of capitalism, and the demands of the patriarchy. Capitalist structure demands that there be a few 'top dogs' with a vast army of under dogs, and that only the super committed/talented/privileged will ever be able to reach the top. It requires a certain % of disposable workforce, part-timers, street sweepers etc. Put that into a patriarchal context, and it will be women who tend to be pushed towards the bottom of that heap, along with any other less privileged groups of people, e.g. disabled, poor, less educated etc etc.

That doesn't mean that the less advantaged should just give up, but the odds are stacked against them.

And various societal pressures are used to maintain the status quo, and justify it. How well someone does at school is still influenced more by their family background than anything else, yet we use education to justify someone's salary and career prospects. Accent, dress, sex, physical ability etc etc are all part of how people are assessed when they apply for jobs.

Less than 10% of the UK population go to private school, but they make up 50% of Oxbridge entrants. Of course the other 50% prove that it is possible to get in from a state school, but it also proves how much harder it is to achieve that.

[Metabilis3]

I'll just push off then and let you all continue congratulating each other on great posts. :)

[Snog]

I think just focussing on "high fliers" in this debate is equivalent to focussing on how easy it is to become a world class athlete as a means to improve the percentage of people in society who take enough regular exercise to reduce their chances of getting diseases associated with lack of exercise.

ie not that much help

[summerflower]

I didn't say they are mutually exclusive, but I do think, as I stated above, that unless you have a support network (such as a supportive partner, parents around, even a nanny, thinking of colleagues), it is much, much harder to achieve 'traditional' success if you have caring responsibilities. It's a waste of talent to not think more creatively at a structural level about how to make balancing work and family easier for people.

I don't think I said anywhere that women should aim lower simply because they are women. But I do think it is important to recognise the structural issues, because otherwise it is too easy to take the position that women have equality in terms of education and employment rights, therefore if they don't succeed, it is because of their own shortcomings. That is not a good narrative either.

[Snog]

It is pretty clear that if you are in the position where you have reached the top of your profession (as by definition very few are actually able to irrespective of sex)you have a different view of how easily barriers can be overcome than the viewpoint of others in differing situations.

We absolutely need to redefine success. Because if we don't then only the tiny minority "highfliers" will be successful and majority of us will be forever "failures".

[Snog]

summerflower great posts

[Metabilis3]

However I still completely dispute your position that people (not just women) who 'want to be involved at home' can't achieve traditional success or that the two are mutually exclusive. They really aren't. It's a flawed narrative.

[Metabilis3]

That's a bit disingenuous. I'm the one who is deriding having differential definitions of success (although I do take your point about redefining for everyone and I don't disagree with that as a very sensible aim). I don't subscribe to the concept that women should aim lower than men purely as a result of being women at all. Quite the reverse.

[summerflower]

It is also nay saying to demand some different 'level' of 'success' for women, qua women. It's not just nay saying, it's demeaning. I also find it a bit insulting that what in my world is considered just 'success' is labelled 'male'. It's not 'male success' (whether you mean to insult it or metaphorically place it beyond 'our station' ).

[BrandyAlexander]

The other thing I don't understand is that when women like Marissa Mayer are in the position to make a difference (and hopefully will make that difference), they are being slated on here for their choices. Should she have turned the job down?

[BrandyAlexander]

I would be very surprised (based on my experience) to find a women who has both a "high flying" career and children and said that it was easy. I do think that it is important for women who have gone far in their career and combined this with motherhood to say so, so that it is not regarded as impossible. However, no one said it was easy, although somehow some posters appear to have naturally assumed that inference. Of course combining a successful career with young children is exhausting! I think that's a given. But then equally, I think having young children is exhaustig irrespective of whether you sah/woh have a job or have a "career"!

[Metabilis3]

It most definitely is nay saying to only give one side of the picture. It is also nay saying to demand some different 'level' of 'success' for women, qua women. It's not just nay saying, it's demeaning. I also find it a bit insulting that what in my world is considered just 'success' is labelled 'male'. It's not 'male success' (whether you mean to insult it or metaphorically place it beyond 'our station' ).

It's true that it's not helpful not to be honest about barriers etc - but it's also not helpful to not be honest about the fact that increasing numbers of women - especially younger women - are finding it much easier to either negotiate through them or negotiate them away. There seems to be a grinding negativity from some posters on this thread and while god knows I can be very negative myself, particularly when suffering dental distress as I am, I don't think there is much benefit to anyone in only accentuating the negative, particularly when we all agree that part of the problem is that people don't give stuff a go in the first place because they have brought into flawed narratives. It's the same syndrome as you see around Oxbridge entry. To hear some people talk it's impossible to go to Oxbridge from a state school. And this just isn't the case.

[ssd]

my dh is a great father because he loves his kids and is interested in them...he does plenty round the house because he isn't an idiot and knows the hoover/iron doesn't work by themselves

he's an adult as well as a man and thats it, he wasn't brought up by a superwoman/man, he just grew up and realised things need done round the house and kids need their dad to be around doing things with them

its not rocket science and he's not superman because he knows this

[Yama]

My Mum was talking to my dh recently about why he was such a good father. He was brought up by a single mother. He told my Mum that he was a good parent because he was set a good example by his parent.

Dh and I co-parent. I believe that I 'have it all'. So does dh. Our dc are nurtured by us in equal measure. They do not come to Mummy for one thing and Daddy for another. They usually just holler for the nearest parent.

[ssd]

I don't think a lot of women do want equality

some women like being the little woman, spending their partners money whilst no having to earn too much themselves, doing all the housework because he never does it right anyway, being number one with the kids cos no one is as good as them at reading the children

I know a lot lot more women like this than I know high fliers

[BelleCurve]

Viv, I don't understand your point. If the course is "Feminism and the Family", why are you dismissing feminist analysis of patriarchial influences.

Or is this the "every choice is a feminist choice" version? Fact is - women are still have to make choices (and be judged for them) that men don't even consider.

This is a structural issue.