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.

[orangeandlemons]

Also to add, now at 46 I don't "want it all" at all. I am going to say something really contentious here.

I have 2 colleagues who are are 6 and 10 years older than me. They and myself all bought into the "having it all"concept. All of us it transpired, felt we had been fed a myth. To "have it all" meant too much stress and unhappy kids. We all had supportive dp's and children. We also felt angry that we had this expectation placed on us.

We are all strong feminists, and this was very hard to admit. We didn't want it all. We wanted stress free lives and tranquility

[LadyInDisguise]

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.

That's where you can see the influence of the society around you. If all the mums had been working late you wouldn't have felt jealous and you wouldn't have specifically wanted to give that to your dd.
In the same way, you ds probably hears his friends saying they don't have to do any HW and he can see (incl on TV) that this is what society expects women to do, so that's what he wants too (esp as it will be easier for him!).

[PineappleBed]

I think the answer definitely lies in changing culture (so easy then?!!). I am frequently horrified on MN when people come on and say they do all cooking, cleaning, childcare and work but that their DH is a good dad 'cause he takes the DC swimming on a Sunday. What? No! They are his children/dirty pants/hungry tummy too there needs to be a better divide.

My DH does way more than any other DH I know which is partly because he had a feminist mum and partly because I was not willing to fall into the trap of doing everything for a man. I do still do more cleaning but everything else is pretty equal.

It is hard for him in this culture though. Every Sunday he does the week's shop with DD and every week some one will tell him how good he is to take DD all on his own and do the shopping to give his wife a break. It makes him frustrated as he likes food shopping and loves DD as much as I do. Another example, in our public sector very flexible work place he took in a cake to celebrate something or other. Everyone asked him if I baked it and wouldn't believe him that he did to the extent that they were asking me if that was true. Such small steps towards equality and such a lot of patronising nonsense in return.

I think what I'm trying to say though these anecdotes is that it's going to take a lot of men telling society to shove it's macho bullshit stereotypes and a lot of women telling society to shove their pinkified vajazzelled bullshit before we see real change if my DH gets ribbed for baking a cake and loving his daughter.

[orangeandlemons]

Yes,I suppose you're right, I've never thought about it like that. But at 6 I just knew I wanted my mum and missed her a lot. I felt the same until I was about 12. I didn't want my dd to feel like that.

When I was older I really admired her BUT I did miss her when I was little, and that was what changed me in regards to my dd

[PineappleBed]

I totally agree that mum and dad swooping isn't the answer. In my work place there are lots of senior women but they all, no exceptions, are either single or have a SAHP. That's not what I want, I want too work and spend time with my daughter (I'm going back to work post maternity leave pt) and not be penalised by my work place for doing so.

[minipie]

orange what childcare did you have? My mum also worked (often long hours) when I was small but I didn't feel the same as you, probably because I had a great nanny and so I enjoyed having time with my nanny and then time with my mum. Maybe you would have been happier with a WOHM if she'd had a better childcare setup (not always easy to find/afford I know)?

[orangeandlemons]

I went to a neighbour who was fine. She was my best friend''s mum. But I wanted MY mum. The only way I can explain it is I felt homesick for my mum, all through my early childhood

Dd told me she misses me when she is at school, and can't wait to see me when she finishes. That's what I felt like, but I had an extra 3 hours to wait.

I am actually a fierce feminist and would fight to the death for equal rights. I often have a go at the girls I teach who just want to have babies, or do their dad's ironing for him.

[avenueone]

I think what I'm trying to say though these anecdotes is that it's going to take a lot of men telling society to shove it's macho bullshit stereotypes and a lot of women telling society to shove their pinkified vajazzelled bullshit before we see real change if my DH gets ribbed for baking a cake and loving his daughter. if you know any single men like this, please pass them my details.. great line.

[VivGroskop]

Sensing a lot of (not especially repressed) anger on this thread! MASSIVE UNDERSTATEMENT All polite, articulate anger, though OF COURSE! Huzzah! All so fascinating. Feels like mothers are divided into two camps: ones who are satisfied with the contribution their partner makes and ones who are not. And a lot of anger about the "myth" Anne-Marie Slaughter mentions that frustration that you were sold this deal and maybe you've even sold it on to other, younger women and it turns out to be so much more complicated. Have we been played for schmucks?!

As for "having it all" I kind of want to reclaim it because I think it's a good shorthand for "having a half-decent career (if you want one) whilst also being able to be a parent" which is something that should surely be open to any person of any gender it's surely not that impossible. What is difficult is trying literally to have it ALL super-amazing-knock-out-fly-so-high-you-touch-da-sky career AND super-close-homemade-cupcake-intimate-bond-not-a-moment's-guilt relationship with family. No-one really has that. Not any man, not any woman. What's disturbing is that people (both men and women) are finding it hard to have a half-decent career (or, in the recession, and with the rising cost of childcare, any job at all) and a half-decent family life.

Re mention of Scandinavia - yes, their policies are v interesting and there is a lot in Rebecca Asher's book Shattered: Modern Motherhood and the Illusion of Equality about this
www.rebeccaasher.com/
But I have heard anecdotally (OK, from one Danish woman at a party) that these caring-sharing-equal-parenting-subsidised-childcare policies are causing huge crises in relationships between men and women -- the men resent that it's not clear what their role is anymore and, she claimed, lots of couples argued about how to share what and almost wished that they could go back to the old-fashioned model where at least everyone knew what they were supposed to do even if they hated it and felt resentful. Hee hee.

[VivGroskop]

(and hello kitsmummy! or should I say "salve")

[LurcioLovesFrankie]

I've pasted in below what I wrote on another thread, not long after the Anne-Marie Slaughter piece came out. I thoroughly agree with Hothead that it's the fact that it's so gendered - we're not talking about a kind of general existential "can any human being have the moon on a stick?" question, but one specifically framed in such a way as to make a woman who wants the chance of, as Viv just succinctly put it, "having a half-decent career (if you want one) whilst also being able to be a parent" seem like an uppity termagant who doesn't know her proper place. And it seems to me that as feminists the gendered aspect is central. This isn't an innocuous question, it comes with a historical context (part of the 80s/90s backlash against women's economic self-determination), and is loaded in terms of the answer it expects ("oh silly me, to think I could have it all, now let me just sit down and file my nails for a mo while I decide whether to be a silly mom or a ball-breaking career woman" - I use the terms "silly" and "ball-breaking" to indicate the attitude towards women of the people running this sort of article, not because I think they're good descriptors).


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. (Note - the right to try, not necessarily to achieve: I'm not saying all men have an easy ride by any stretch of the imagination).
   
   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:
   
4. 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.
   
5. 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.
   
6. 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).

[blackcurrants]

But nobody talks about men 'having it all'.

OH MY GOD CAN WE PLEASE ALL JOIN TOGETHER IN A BIG CHOIR AND SING THIS FROM THE ROOFTOPS THREE TIMES A DAY?

Yes, hothead - exactly. DH has it all! he has a job! A family! I've just asked him and he has never, ever been asked 'how do you manage?' or 'what are your plans for after the baby's born?'

Actually, the birth of our child was a positive for him in his work, they started to take him more seriously and stop thinking of him as a young'un who's likely to skip off into another job any time soon. My immediate superiors advised me to hide my pregnancy as long as possible. I was back at work 6 weeks after the birth (US here, no maternity leave in my job).

ANYWAY, I haven't read the whole thread yet but I did skim and I don't think anyone has linked to Rebecca Traister's excellent critique/rebuttal of the article. She points out that the framing by the photo and headline suggests something like "it's feminism's fault that women want it all, children suffer" is not what Slaughter is actually writing about, and not helpful.

[Emphaticmaybe]

Beachhutdweller - great post.

My situation is very different to yours but you have articulated perfectly my feelings about motherhood. It would not be enough for me to simply swap roles with my children's father I would always prefer an equal division of work and childcare. It would be detrimental to my well-being to be pushed out of the nurturing role.

Obviously I am very aware that many women are just as content to switch roles and they should be fully supported in their choices, but if it was a necessity not a choice it would be a recipe for unhappiness for many.

[neigesdantan]

Can I just reiterate the point that others have made, but I feel so strongly is true! In the real world, there are not many mothers who have a choice about working/staying at home. Most of us need 2 incomes (or 1 income if single) to pay horrific mortgages and generally stay afloat. I spent a lot of agonizing time worrying that I was not being a 'proper'/'nurturing' mother when I returned to work. But eventually I realised it's not a question of having it all or otherwise - I do what I do to ensure my DS has a roof over his head and food on the table, and I'm not going to beat myself up over that. For others it may be different, but I think they're a lucky few these days.

[SiliBiliMili]

lurcio you are so spot in with your post. Very well articulated.

[Snog]

Agree that a change to the long hours culture is where happiness lies for families. I suggest a new standard working week for all public sector employees of 30 hours and tax incentives for private companies who follow suit. The new norm would be for both men and women to work 4 days a week and not 5.

In my view we need more equality. I would like men and women to have equal maternity leave - the first six months for the woman and the next six months for the man. This should put a stop to much of the discrimination against women in the workplace.

[minipie]

Snog I couldn't agree more.

But you will get plenty of happy SAHMs who will not like that suggestion. The current system works pretty well for those who want the traditional "dad at work mum at home" set up. Your system would mean dad probably won't earn enough to support a SAHW, so mum will have to work at least a bit, and mum won't get her year at home with LO.

[kickassangel]

I think that the state of your marriage ( whether you're married or how work is divided between you) is necessarily as big a factor as we sometimes think. Single parents and married ones canbe just as likely to have/do it all. I'd like to see some figures about how many single parents stay home and how many work.

I also think that life can go in stages. I have been a ft wohm, ft sahm and pt mix of work at home and outside home. Once you have a kid you spend your life juggling commitments no matter what. If you're the kind of person who rushes around getting everything sorted you will do that. If you used to be fairly laid back and worry about things later, that will be your approach.

As an absolute minimum you'll have the demands of yourself, a child and a home to take care of. Whether you also have a partner, other family, job, career, many children, whatever, then you just learn to juggle all of that.

Yes, I do sometimes dream of having a life that is simple, where I can just get on with my career and really focus on it, but I think that a very small number of people are actually able to do that. It's a bit of a myth.

[AnnieLobeseder]

I think it's not about women wanting it all, it's about women being expected to do it all. My DH does about 50% of the household chores, but he's unusual in this. Then there are school bits and pieces from packing school bags to remembering PE kit to reading letters and sending the responses back - all usually the women's responsibility. To the household bills, arranging the childcare, the after-school clubs...

Until men are expected to take more responsibility for their families and household, women are going to have to more work overall, and that's why women struggle so much more to find that work-life balance.

[Snog]

Annie this is why I think it is easiest when men and women have exactly the same terms and conditions of working and the same pay and prospects.Then it is obvious that the chores and childcare go 50/50.

minipie agree mum won't get her year at home with LO. But dad will get 6 months he would not have had. And mum will get equality in the workplace and will only be expected to work 30 hours. I think this would radically shift society in a really good way. There is no reason in this scenario that we could not have 50% women MPs and 50% representation on the workplace at ALL levels. It's great to know it's not just me who likes this idea

[rushingrachel]

Hi Viv. I think this topic is fascinating. Because there is no answer. I am a SAHM. Formerly senior counsel for European Legal Affairs in a multinational. My husband is a senior lawyer in a US firm. 2 lawyers, we met training and were absolutely equal. He was maybe more analytical, I was maybe more pragmatic. But we were both ambitious twenty something's.

I thought when I had children "no way I'll give up". I was proud of my role, proud of being a woman in industry. We had grand plans for crèches and nannies.

But I quickly realised the reality was untenable. My job had irregular hours sometimes early starts, but mostly late finishes and variable work load. Children get tired, get sick. Nannies get sick and disappear and have time off and want to leave on time. The stress on me became intense. I'd be on a call about something or have someone in my office and things would start to drag and I would be stressed about getting home. I'd work into the night. And I wasn't getting it right on any fronts. I did want to be at home. My kids are fantastic. Funny, clever little people. But when I was home, which was not often enough, I was full of dread I had let a ball slip at work. When I was at work I was constantly fretting I would have to decline x business trip or that someone would come in to talk as I was trying to leave. Colleagues noticed I was less available. My husband and I would argue about who would take the day off when the nanny disappeared sick. And then the older son went to school and a whole new layer of organisation presented itself (and our nanny left). So I decided I couldn't do it any more. And now I stay home, go to school to collect my son, spend time at the gym, bake bread. And I enjoy it.

But that does not mean I think it's ideal. I would like a career, would have liked to be able to take leave for a while or work part time. But part time senior counsel don't really exist. A person without commitments objectively serves the needs of the business better than someone with one eye on the door.

So what I did was simply the only solution I could come up with for us where both of us had careers in the long hours culture and I was very stressed and we were paying an absolute fortune in childcare.

Personally I don't think I decided to do what I did because I have a nurturing instinct. Although if you push me about why the stress fell on me not my husband I can't say, although I think that's sociological rather than because I am intrinsically more nurturing than him.

The other thing I believe fundamentally as put eloquently by another poster, is that unless there are cultural changes that allow people to work more flexibly, and to work shorter hours, this question will remain insoluble. Also I think it would help if responsibility for provision of childcare fell to employers ...! But that will clearly never happen.

And then onto the feminist agenda. Hmmm. I am getting over the identity crisis of not working, but slowly. My job defined me to some extent. And a small part of me is disappointed in myself - I think the 18 year old me who was a feisty girl would have been appalled. I was brought up as part of the generation of girls who were told "get out there, you can do anything, be anything" ... And there are many of us that went out there and got fantastic qualifications and good jobs and then found out that we "couldn't have it all".....

But when the guilt begins I know absolutely I want to be the one that's there at the school gate and that's why I don't work any more.

PS I didn't make it to the end of the article although I did try! I empathised with much of what she said though. However its relative length demonstrated how hard it seems to be to verbalise meaningfully or concisely even what the nature of the problem is, let alone the solutions!

[Snog]

rachel will you swap roles with your dh at some point do you think?

[supersare]

Am I the only person who believes the most important thing is what is best for our dc's? I will always believe that dc's want their mum (or dad) to be their primary carer. Therefore if you really want what is best for your child then surely it's no big sacrifice to cut down on work in order to look after them? In some cases of course this isn't financially possible. But they do grow up and need less intensive care as time goes on. I've known too many women over the years who have worked purely to pay for luxuries, I'm pretty certain that given the choice a child would rather have their mum around more to give them love and attention rather than an expensive toy or designer clothes