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.

The UK has a culture where it is seen as a necessity for women to be at home and look after their dcs. We are bombarded by comments that having dcs at nursery is bad for them that their stress levels are higher etc...
This is not the case everywhere in the world and in other countries, iot is OK for women to work and not be a SAHM. No one will think you are damaging the dcs for doing that.

So yes women bumbles along trying the find the best balance but they also do so in a cultural context for 'WOHM being bad for the dcs' which induces guilt. Then women have to deal with the guilt and find it even more of a challenge to be able to be there for any school play (always arranged at short notice), spend time with their dcs and still work and look after the house. Because 'they should be at home at hand to cope with any issue arising regarding the dcs'. And it's like this because children should be with their mum don't you know?

The general idea that women are 'nurturing' and 'men can't do as well in rearing children' is just crap and culturally related.

As for 'having it all' what does it mean? A high powered career or lots of money or doing the job you love or what ....

I agree that men's lives and working patterns need to change. But we can't blame it all on capitalism. I agree it is a big part of the problem, but IME men - with a few honourable exceptions - don't want to earn less, see their careers suffer, do more chores, use up valuable mental space thinking about school shoes and birthday cards and whether the beds have been changed. All the stuff that women accept on a daily basis. I don't think this is because they areas sing some vital nurturing gene. I think it's because they know - subconsciously - which side their bread is buttered on.

Women have spent a few decades proving that with equal education and opportunities, we can do jobs just as well as men.

I think the next step is to earn respect for flexible or part time working, and respect for the job of child raising, because it will only be when men/dads have that choice (without the massive loss of status currently) that more mums will have a realistic prospect of working - both partners doing a share of the earning and a share of the childcaring. It's a very hard thing to see people without kids or who have SAHP partners promoted past you though, even my employer who are quite enlightened struggle with the fact I'm resigned to my career flatlining for a few years so I can balance priorities.

Going back to Takver's point about consumer goods, the reason we have more consumer goods available is because we are bombarded with the message we need what has been produced. If there is no profit it simply would never have been produced. the other thing is that, people have been plunged into debt over the last 30 years because of the feelings of insecurity of not keeping up socially with others. You know we are social creatures we like to belong! Average household debt is now 120% of yearly income in 1930 it was something like 23%. It's little wonder women are willingly throwing themselves at the feet of capitalism, either willingly to keep up and be seen as "independent economically" after all it's the only value you have, or in utter exhaustion just trying to hold it all together.

Ooooh! teatimesthree "They know which side their bread is buttered on." Are you saying their DHs would leave them if they tried to make them do school shoes, birthday cards and bed-changing?! Betty Friedan wept. But I know a lot of women who think like this. And so the culture of "learned helplessness" continues...

No teatimes is right. It's seen as a drop in status for men to be less commited to work and more committed to the family. (DH can do it because he's self employed and doesn't give a damn what anyone thinks).

If women (i.e. mums) are to have more opportunities to work, use their education and talents and earning potential, men (i.e. dads) need to pick up the slack, not expect the mum to pay for childcare and do all the housework on top of her job. But there's very little culture or precedent of men cutting their working hours when they become parents, really the glass ceiling is a glass floor too.

oooh I am fantasying about that now

That's exactly the thing.

Children need nurturing, but there's absolutely no reason why this nurturing should come more from the mother than the father. I think it's utter bollocks that all (or even the majority of) women are somehow by default more "nurturing" than men, though they are pushed to be that way throughout their lives.

No, the big thing is that once there are children, someone's got to do the nurturing (childcare can only cover this up to a limited point). But it is still so rare for men to even seriously consider this, let alone actually volunteer to take on the main caring (and housekeeping/general domestic) role - and there are still so few role models for this - that of course the woman is going to end up doing it most of the time. Men expect that, bosses expect that, benefits are set up that way, women themselves expect that in most cases... it would take a very determined and un-hidebound* couple to really give over that role entirely to the man.

And then the other factor is that because of maternity leave, breastfeeding etc, the mother has usually been at home with baby for a while, developed a close bond, and got used to this new life and new role, at least to an extent. So of course, when she does eventually think about going back to work, she is the one who will feel that she is "leaving" the baby - and giving up the time spent with it, which has by now come to feel normal. Not to mention that she is more likely to feel the guilt about using childcare, as she is usually the one making the change that causes it to be needed. Whereas the dad has probably had only a week or two away from work (possibly shorter than his normal Summer holiday!) - so for him, "normal" still means going out to work and coming home to baby in the evenings and at weekends; and he doesn't need to feel guilty about using childcare, as that wasn't caused by him, oh no, it was her going back to work wot done it So again, the obvious "choice" (or default?) seems to be for the woman to stay on as "main nurturer", and fit any other work she decides to take on around that role.

Obviously that leads onto the whole what-to-do-about-it and do-we-need-to-do-anything-about-it debate, but I need to think about that some more and this is already a huge post!

*this is not exactly the word I was looking for, but I can't find quite the right one so it'll have to do...

"learned helplessness" great phrase (newbie) a friend once said.. I am coming back incapable it will be easier' MiniTheMinx - correct and I did suffer that exhaustion but then woke up (about 4 months later) and value so much less now which actually gives me and my DS so much more. If I didn't have my own business life would be soo different but only because I allow myself the flexible working that an employer might not - start early, finish early, time with DS - do a bit more later. My salary has varied dramatically over the years but I have never got myself into debt. I was brought up that you just didn't do that. I was stood next to a young lad the other day getting a pay day loan to go out at the weekend'... ???? ok the products and the temptations have been there since adam and eve but we need to educate against having to have something just because it exits. Surely we are a more sophisticated society now and able to do this? (god I'd miss my laptop)
What about sense of duty? it doesn't have to be just capitalism we throw ourselves at the feet of.
teatime/fossil - correct - when the role of the father is valued more other than just when it suits F4J (ok that is a bit personal) then women will benefit from real opportunities - tis a long way off .. "learned helplessness"
ok we have to give birth and breast feed - we should be compensated in relation to pensions and tax... (I'm off on a tangent... pulling myself back).

I think that most relationships need us to find a balance between the desire to indulge ourselves emotionally, and the practicalities of life.

When we first fall in love, we want to pull a sickie from work and spend the day with our new love. When we have kids we want to spend time with them.

I think that men are socialised into focussing more on the practical stuff, and women are expected/allowed to be more emotional. In fact, it's one o the things that is meant to define us as women. We are often berated for being over emotional, but then seen as unfeminine if we aren't emotional enough.

I never wanted to be a SAHM. For a brief period I had to be (new country, no work visa) and I hated it. I love dd to pieces, really enjoy spending time with her and 'hanging out' (she's 8), but I also need to have a goal/project to do and work is the best solution to that. the money is also something I need to keep the family going.

So, no I don't think that women inherently need to indulge their nurturing nature, I think that's a lod of misogynistic bollocks. I'm sure that there are plenty of men who would like to spend more time with their kids, and women who want to work but can't/don't.

I'd love to see how things change in a society where everyone is brought up expecting to work, and also expecting to do 50% of the 'nurturing' that children need.

Sorry for typos - I am nurturing a very needy (and large) cat, who is between me and the laptop.

Jesus Christ. I think you'll find that most relationships just get on with life and couldn't give a rats ass what other people think of their situation. You know that the vast majority of people don't have a really successful husband, right?!!

I read the article a while back and didn't think the conclusion said quite what you said (although the awful pictures of babies in briefcases and the headlines did...)

I thought she was reflecting on all the talks she'd given to girls in uni telling them they can do anything they want, and they shouldn't compromise, and all the times she had been disappointed at her friends and colleagues for stepping back out of public life. And here she was doing the same thing (albeit into a job that is nor high powered than 99% of people's).

I thought she was reflecting on the fact that the "you can have it all" narrative sets women up to think that if they have to compromise more than their DH or the dads they work with then it it is all their own fault and something they need to negotiate on their own.

When the compromises (and the process that Mynameis describes) do
kick in I think it comes as a surprise for many women - because it's not part of our professional script.

The speech given by the head of the Girls Day School Trust the other week I thought was interesting on this.

Viv, it's not so much that men will leave if they are asked to remember birthdays/ go shopping for school uniform, it's that they just won't do it, or will do it so badly or so last minute that most women will lose their nerve/their rag and do it themselves. Men are masters of passive resistance. IMO this is not necessarily a deliberately evil strategy - there is a little voice at the back of their brains whispering "that's not really my job". So in fact it's the woman who will end up leaving if she feels strongly about shared domestic responsibility. In most cases, though, women don't feel that a dirty kitchen floor is enough to end a relationship over, so they carry on picking up the slack.

I agree with MyNameIs that maternity leave and flexible working are unhelpful in this regard as they cement the mother in the caring role. Shared maternity leave, with a portion reserved for the father only, is essential in my view.

One final point - a man in the house creates a lot of work too. You will often read on MN that it is easier to be a single parent than to live with a crap man. I have certainly found this to be true.

teatimesthree "I agree that men's lives and working patterns need to change. But we can't blame it all on capitalism."

You're completely right, I went off on a bit of a tangent last night really. I think that we unquestionably need to think and talk about men's behaviour.

I suppose that I just feel that the 'having it all' thing specifically is tied into both men's behaviour (ie not doing their share of 'family maintenance' work) and also the current state of capitalism in Britain.

My impression is that in at least some of the countries where there is a more equal income distribution (which are still capitalist countries, of course, just a slightly different version) - in particular the Scandinavian ones - there is also a more equal division of labour within the family.

I think teatimes point that shared parental leave where half can only be taken by the father would be a big step forward. The question is, would fathers take it, or would it just mean mothers having to juggle the whole work/childcare thing earlier?

I think if the leave was there for men it would gradually start to get used. The economics would still be a factor though - the parent that earned more would be more likely to spend less time on the statutuory parental leave pay.

teatimesthree - spot on with all of your last post - but I prob would leave and not take the slack

Just wanted to reply to orangesandlemons from a page or so back who said that she'd stepped back from her career and chosen to be at home, and has concluded that women aren't in the boardrooms, etc., because they'd CHOSEN not to be.

It made me wonder if you'd have made a different choice if your career had been structured differently - i.e. suppose you only had to go into the office for important meetings and they laid on free childcare to enable you to do it? Do you think you would still have made the same choice?

I ask because I suspect that for many women , the 'choice' is made between two incompatible alternatives and they choose either the one they prefer or the one that doesn't drive them into penury. I think far fewer women choose to stay at home now because the alternatives are not as incompatible as they used to be. But there's a lot more to do in that direction.

teatimesthree
There is another option though. Which is to leave them to do things badly and let cope with the consequences of not doing it right.
eg: I give the dc a bath. I do it badly, child is crying and .... I have deal with it, calm him down etc... And no, no one is going to solve that problem with me.

It's the same with a lot things like not doing the washing up properly (it can go back to the dirty pile of dishes) etc...

But what it really is about is about treating your DH as an adult, capable of looking after himself, take decisions and cope with them. We don't them and us any favour but taking up the slack.

Re 'having it all'.
This is also an issue of social conditioning too.
As women, we are told that we should nurturing etc... and that money isn't everything. Talk to a man and earning money will probably on the top of his list of the 'good things to have'. So the man goes out 'hunting' thanks to his well paid job whilst the woman stays at home 'nurturing'.
As women we have been taught that a career is good and we can do that too. But also that we should be mum first, then a wife and then right at the end we could be something for ourselves, like having a high powered job (but really if you could just go and a couple of hours volunteering at the school that would be better). Talk to a man and his job is quite often what defines him. He isn't a dad or a husband first. He is a lawyer, a plumber or a teacher. and usually then himself before being a dad or a husband

The expression 'having in it all' is also a very negative one. It is usually associated with the idea that you actually want everything and too much. usually sounds like a spoiled child that doesn't really realize he can't have everything.
What it is usually meant by that is for men to say that women are asking too much when they say they want a career too, just like men. Don't women know that they need to fulfil their first roles first (ie being a mum and a wife)???

It's not so much that men will leave if they are asked to remember birthdays/ go shopping for school uniform, it's that they just won't do it, or will do it so badly or so last minute that most women will lose their nerve/their rag and do it themselves. Men are masters of passive resistance. IMO this is not necessarily a deliberately evil strategy - there is a little voice at the back of their brains whispering "that's not really my job".

Agree totally teatimesthree. And we need to change the constant advertising etc drip which tells them it's not their job, and we need to stop picking up the slack and insist that they are just as capable of remembering birthdays as we are. Which they are.

But there is an additional problem, as well as male resistance. Many full time jobs simply don't leave time for doing 50% of the domestic duties - by which I include remembering birthdays/going shopping for school uniform as well as the more obvious cleaning/tidying/putting children to bed. So, for many couples, a 50/50 split of the domestic duties is impossible, unless they both go part time or at least switch to a 9-5 job. And as we all know, such jobs are hard to come by and often not very well paid. This is why many couples choose to have one "chief breadwinner" and one "chief parent".

So the other change that needs to happen is the availability of part time jobs, or at the very least, jobs that have a decent finishing time in the evening.

No I don't think I would have changed. All the firece ambition which drove me in my 20's just disaapeared, it became less important, and dc became more important.

However, I think I am a bit unusual, beacuse I was bought up by a very strong feminist who stronly believed women could have it all, and that you didn't need a man at all. I am still a very strong feminist myself, but I do think that my upbringing affected me.

As my mum worked when I was little, I never saw her until after 6 or at weekends. I was insanely jealous of all friends who had parent's who picked them up etc. I wanted my dd to have this

I was bought up not to expect to do all domestic stuff and that it should always be shared. I have never been in a relatioship with a man who didn't pull his weight domestically and never would be. It simple isn't an issue, all my relationships ahve been very equal in that respect. I am crap at housework, butreasonable atcookingand like doing laundry Dp does most of cleaning, I do most of other stuff, and dd stuff. I actually think I was boughtup with learned helplessness about housework!

I do think if our children ae bought up in an eqaual waythen the housework stuff wouldn't be an issue. ButI am not partime to be in control domestically-NO WAY! I am part time for dd.

However I have bought ds(18) up to believe in equallity(he frequently moans that he can't see women as sex objects because hewas bought up by a feminist ), BUT he complains all the time about domestic stuff and wants me to do it "cos that's what mum's do "

Also as a teacher in a very academic school, I once asked my form about this, and gett his! All the girls wanted to be doctors/lawyers/ top jobs etc. Most of the boys wanted to get married to have a girl to look after them I kid you not! The girls were horrified and so was I!

Hello Viv, totally irrelevant but I just wanted to say hi, as I went to the same school as you, although you were 2 or 3 years older than me. I remember chatting to you at one of those latin speaking competitions and remember you saying how you always used Viv as you hated your full name!

That's interesting orangesandlemons - obviously in your case it was a free choice. I was just speculating that some people are forced to choose between one alternative and another when - ideally - they'd prefer to work some combination of the two. So - yes, they've made a CHOICE, but with a wider range of alternatives, they might have made a different choice. A lot of the SAHMs I know are in that position.

It's interesting also - if you don't mind me commenting on your situation - that a lot of your choices are driven by your own childhood experiences and how that shaped your thinking about how women should live. I think you're probably more honest than lots of people about the extent to which their attitudes about motherhood, work and so on are affected by their childhood. You're obviously kicking against what you were taught while others comply with it.

I'm grateful to my mother that she was a positive role model of how it was possible to be a hands on mother while maintaining a professional identity outside the home.

I just want to say something based very much on my own experience of doing one version of what is being discussed here.

I went from being a SAHM (of one toddler DC) to an incredibly demanding role - early starts, late finishes, working at weekends etc. DH became a SAHD. Basically, I hated it. I missed my child terribly and I felt that I had basically given up being a mother and handed it over completely to DH. DH really enjoyed it and was great at it, but I was desperately unhappy, despite enjoying my work.

I am not saying that any overall political conclusions about gender relationships can be drawn from this one experience - but the reason I liked the Atlantic article was that it was based on experience, not simply on a sense of what might be ideal in theory.

Yes, her job dedication was unusual, but not that unusual - many jobs nowadays require long/antisocial hours. The part where she said that women may just not be happy to simply 'swop' with their husbands really struck a cord with me. I do not really know if it is biology or social conditioning - probably a mixture of the two - but personally I feel that being around for my children is crucially important to my own happiness and wellbeing. I think many women feel like this too. Sadly not that many men do, which is such a terrible shame because the most desirable scenario is a genuine sharing of work and childcare. Because my DH has now been a SAHD, this is important to him, and our long term plan is to try to both work PT/flexibly if at all possible.

But I don't think it's necessarily a good solution to simply swop, or somehow deny women their nurturing role, if that is something they identify with. Men need to take on a nurturing role too - no question - but - IME - them becoming 'Mum', whilst the woman becomes 'Dad' is not necessarily the great solution it may appear to be.