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.

[Takver]

"Don't those women deserve to reach the level they could have and spend a reasonable amount of time with their children?"

To be fair, I'm not sure that men working at the sort of level I think you're talking about spend a reasonable amount of time with their children, either.

[ninjasquirrel]

The questions this thread brings up for me are about the fact that men can't 'have it all', either (but no one ever talks about that) in professions where the norm is crazy hours. Why has this become the norm? Most men with small children would actually like to see them in the week... Is it like some arms race, with the competition to prove yourself more dedicated ending in a situation no one really wants?

[SweetTheSting]

I agree with Takver. I know several SAHMs and two SAHDs. The economics in all cases was that the higher earning partner continued working. Although in two cases (one male, one female), the decision was 'forced' by redundancy.

[SiliBiliMili]

Vivgroskop
Do you think we should accept that as a reality? Or fight against it? Don't those women deserve to reach the level they could have and spend a reasonable amount of time with their children?

No. we should not accept it. But not sure what can be done really.

[DowagersHump]

In the article she mentions the fact that she can't even get to a shop and then doesn't comment on that further. To me, that's the entire point. Jobs like this (and they aren't just confined to government - the City is a fantastic time sucker) are designed to fit within a traditional capitalist structure where the man works and is supported by a woman who does his shopping and cooking and cleaning for him, while also raising his children.

As long as we continue to accept that, to rise to the giddy heights of a profession, you sacrifice you life outside of it, then this will carry on. We need to say enough. But until men start saying that they want to spend more time with their families and have a life outside work, then nothing is ever going to change.

[MiniTheMinx]

I have just quickly read a couple of pages, two things are clear from what Slaughter says, one is that in work where she had control in organising her own schedule she had a work - life balance however in a role with no flexibility she says "the minute I found myself in a job that is typical for the vast majority of working women (and men), working long hours on someone else?s schedule, I could no longer be both the parent and the professional I wanted to be"

Whilst her role in government seems in no way to be similar to the type of career/job most women might undertake what is similar is the fact that she had no control over her schedule.

In the states productivity has risen 80% over the last twenty years, wages only 7%. This is telling because not only are women achieving more than ever for themselves, they are pushing up productivity and indeed profit for their employers, 2/3 rds of the worlds workforce is female. This is because employers expect more commitment, more hours, more home working, more flexibility, more productivity for less reward. I'm sure Slaughter's role was well paid and rewarding which probably is the point at which her experience diverges from that of most women's paid employment.

The real question for me, isn't can women have it all but when can women share in the profit of their increased productivity? maybe we can work fewer hours, keep a decent standard of living, have economic parity with men (all men) and a better work - life balance.

[ninjasquirrel]

DowagersHump "until men start saying... " Yes! That's the point I was floundering towards.

[tethersend]

"Having it all" implies a lottery win; the reality is having two jobs. Woohoo.

Until the division of domestic labour is equal, it is difficult to separate parenting from chores; women who work are labelled as 'having it all' because it is assumed by default that they already have the domestic chores/parenting; unlike men who work.

I think it is this assumption which needs questioning.

[tethersend]

Am on phone whilst feeding baby (living the dream), making little sense

[VivGroskop]

ventures to summarise in Sarah Montague voice So we are saying (a) it will take big changes in men's lives for feminism (whatever that is) to move forward (so that they can do more childcare and have the same expectations about family life fitting in with work life that some women are able to have) and (a) this is turning into a debate that is less about gender roles and more about the part that capitalism* (whatever that is) plays in all our lives. So it's really a political/economic debate now. Are we really running our society efficiently and fairly? Or have we just gone mad pursuing profit? Is that what we're talking about?

Unfortunately I think the recession has kind of ballsed up any potential answer to this question anyway. We are screwed economically in any case. Top tip: move to China/Russia/Brazil and become Norland Nanny for high-achieving superwoman out there. Get in the queue behind me. I thought of it first.

• personally I take feminism to mean "gender-blindness" or "equality" (like the gender equivalent of anti-racism) rather than WOMB POWER. Although I like womb power too I think it's too dangerously the flip side of PENIS POWER.
  
  ** I am not even going to pretend to summarise capitalism. Anyone?

[Takver]

I know many on here would disagree, but I think that we need to talk about capitalism as well as feminism.

MinitheMinx makes a very good point above:

"In the states productivity has risen 80% over the last twenty years, wages only 7%."

The same is true in the UK - since 1979 wages have been consistently falling relative to profits as a share of national income. Increases in productivity have been soaked up by profits NOT been passed on to the workers.

Household incomes have continued to rise over this period pretty much entirely because of increased participation by women in the labour market.

Obviously (perhaps? maybe others would disagree) it is a positive thing that women have more equal access to the labour market - even though we're consistently paid only 80% of what a man earns. BUT it isn't a positive IMO that most families now effectively need to have two full time workers in the household to achieve an acceptable standard of living.

If it were still possible for most families to pay housing costs and operate fully in society with one income, then there would be more scope for splitting the stay at home role between parents, for example.

To summarise: we're not having it all, we're being fucked over by capitalism . . .

[saintlyjimjams]

I agree with Takver.

However, I have also found a pull to be home. My problem is that as carer for a severely autistic child (so no access to childcare) I have had to work from home during school hours only. But I need to work full time which means I need to work every evening. So most of the time I am with the children I 'should' be working, which means that as soon as they start to mess around I am cross and irritated and feel I am not being the best mother I could be.

My long term aim to cut back on work so that I am working school hours only and as soon as the kids get home I can focus on them. If I didn't have to work I wouldn't tbh as I find the juggling and zero downtime very difficult. As DH says 'it's stressful at work and it's stressful at home too'. I do feel when I wasn't working it wasn't as stressful at home - for any of us.

But that ties in with Takver's point about being screwed by capitalism and being unable to afford to be a carer, whilst actually having to be anyway.

[avenueone]

I have `had it all' put onto me as a single mummy from pregnancy. Constant compromise but I learned that I could never do everything no matter how hard I try.. ok I did try and I suffered exhaustion. I love everything about my life a bit too much so I wanted to do everything !! like a good diet I do everything in moderation now - well most of the time.

• we can't have every meal cooked from scratch but a take away every now and again is nice. I can't do all the foreign trips any more with work.. for now.. but I do get to see my child at sports day instead.
  

I don't want all my old life back -it has given me the chance for a new life - it's about us both being happy I guess.. and ok sometimes a spinning plate crashes and I re-evaluate.
No one can IMO have it all whatever their circumstances - so whilst I am not in a couple I am no different to any other woman in that respect. Opportunity cost is how I look at it - there is always a cost for an opportunity.

If I won the lottery and didn't need the wage? I would still do voluntary work and prob would get more time with my DS but again it's about `having' happiness/contentment IMO... a SAHM doesn't just care for her family she adds to society in other ways too - unless someone is unhappy who is anyone else to judge.

[oranges]

I think the 2 main points I took away from Slaughter's article is that

1. working hours need to change. I am more productive, and my family happier, if I can start work really early, stop mid afternoon to do after school/dinner/bedtime then send emails and fairly routine stuff in the evening.
   
2. career paths aren't linear anymore. You can plateau when children are young, then restart, and aim to peak in your mid 50s, as opposed to your 40s. I think this is true now for many young fathers too, who want to be around their children and step back occassionally from work.

[tethersend]

"If it were still possible for most families to pay housing costs and operate fully in society with one income, then there would be more scope for splitting the stay at home role between parents, for example. "

Good point, Takver- if staying at home to care for children was financially rewarded on a par with paid work, this would also address the problem.

[avenueone]

Takver - I know it isn't always the case but as a business owner, I share profits, not everyone is the same. My staff is mostly female so no wage bias either.

If it were still possible for most families to pay housing costs and operate fully in society with one income, then there would be more scope for splitting the stay at home role between parents, for example. or have people perceptions is operating fully in society changed? people didn't have as many foreign holidays, drive fancy cars, go out for as many meals.. consumerism or capitalism.. the chicken or the egg?

[Emphaticmaybe]

Agree very much with Mini,takver and saintly - the drop in wages in real terms since the seventies has made it very difficult to get by on a single wage, especially a wage of national average or below.

Parent's choices, male or female, are very much limited by this.

[orangeandlemons]

I have given up analysing the having it all thing.

I was brought up in a very feminist household. "Spare rib" was discussed across the breakfast table [grin. I was brought up to have a career and not to wastemyself as a housewife

I did as I was told. Had a very glamourous and exciting career. Then had ds, and bust up with his dad as neither of us wanted to take responsibilty for having a child. I was left with no choice, but I still had a career to hold onto. Unfortunately it wasn't suitable for a single parent.

12 years older and much wiser I had dd. This time I decided I didn't want to work full time as I wanted to spend time with dd. Not becasue I wanted to be in control, but I just felt that if you have children you have to invest time in them. Time I never gave ds, and which I still feel guilty about now. My career just became less important. However I still enjoyed my job, but just felt my priorities had changed, despite my upbringing. I still hate housework now though, and have no desireto have any control over it.

I often watch programmes about why women don't reach the top in industry/politics etc and why there are so few. Arguments are always there about the glass ceiling. But for me, I'm not there because I don't want to be, it just isn't important to me, despite being bought up to have a career. I often wonder if so few women are there because they feel like me.

[Takver]

"or have people perceptions is operating fully in society changed? people didn't have as many foreign holidays, drive fancy cars, go out for as many meals.. consumerism or capitalism.. the chicken or the egg?"

Yes, it is undoubtedly true that people have more consumer goods now than they did in the late 70s (high water mark for the share of national income going to workers). It is possible to step back from that and refuse to take part in it - living in West Wales and having done my time in communities & housing co-ops I know plenty of people who make that choice.

But the problem is that in practice it is quite tricky to do - you have to live somewhere, and (unlike the 70s) there isn't a big stock of reasonably priced social housing available to ordinary working people. You have to get to work, which in much of the country means a car since bus services were privatised, often two cars if you both work (and if your children want to have swimming lessons/go to brownies/go to birthday parties & generally do all the things that 'normal' children in their class will be doing). Your children will be expected by their teacher to do their homework looking things up on the computer - and the library is only open 2 days a week & the computers are booked solid weeks in advance, whereas 30 years ago they'd have allowed a fortnight & referred to books in the school library etc etc etc.

I think the reality is that some goods have dropped dramatically in price over the last 30 years: electronic goods and clothes being the most obvious. But I'm also reasonably sure that the cost of housing a family for example has gone up in real terms quite substantially. And the things that have gone up are mostly the ones you really can't do without, IYSWIM.

[avenueone]

Great points made orangeandlemons I always think that when they go on about getting more women in boardrooms. Maybe they don't want to be but how would be feel with partners, both earning the same and enough to support two, both wanting to stay at home?

[Solopower]

A lot of parents of teenagers also have elderly parents of their own to look after, and this is going to become more common in the next 15 - 20 years as the baby-boomers retire and grow old. There won't be enough residential homes so more of you will have your parents living with you. For some this will mean help with child care/housework, but for others it will be another pull away from the work place.

Imo the structures have to be put in place now. We've achieved a lot already, but employers are just going to have to be more flexible because few people will have no family commitments at all.

[JugglingWithTangentialOranges]

"Most of us bumble along with whatever combination of work and home we are able to organise" - sounds kinda familiar Treats - and made me chuckle

[orangeandlemons]

Avenueone, I guess the compromise would be to split their working time 1/2 and 1/2, so both get to stay home and both get to go to work a bit. It is about equalityafter all

[avenueone]

Takver I am not sticking up for capitalism in its pure form but without it there would not be the computers, the state of the art leisure centres and play barns for children's parties. Standards of living have gone up - when I look back at how my parents lived, and we work more to feed our wishes for higher standards of living' - rightly or wrongly... or we don't.<br /> <br /> We accept the local' school may be a distance away, our children's friends are therefore a drive' away. Some like the extension of the boundaries and the broadening of our social lives, some like the social mobility opportunities that may (or may not) come as a result.<br /> <br /> Totally take your point on housing - I was delighted to see some low cost housing NW go up close to me this week, people who choose to be happy with less should be able to be.<br /> <br /> I feel that the having it all' debate can be extended to what we feel will/may make us/our children/ family happy. Is the opportunity cost a price worth paying? or dare we not risk it?