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.

[Treats]

Everything lurcio said!!

[Treats]

Oooh and popcornia. I think you're right that when women go out to work instead of staying home with the children, they're putting an actual financial value on the work they do. And if we had to put an actual financial value on the mothering work that we all do, well, society simply couldn't afford it. It NEEDS women to take it all on, unquestioningly, and uncomplainingly.

You've reminded me that one of the most difficult jobs I ever had was as general admin/teamaker/dogsbody in a small company. The reason it was difficult was because everybody else in the office had a defined role, so anything else that needed doing was - by default - my responsibility. And in a growing company that could be anything from getting the fire alarm tested to filing the tax return.

And I think it's the same for SAHMs. HIS job is the work he gets paid for - usually a defined set of tasks - and HER job is everything else - getting a new car tax disc, taking the dog to the vets, buying his mother's birthday present. He might - generously - choose to do some of those things, but only because he feels like it. She has to do everything that otherwise wouldn't get done.

For couples where both partners work, you have a whole range of experiences - from those where both understand what needs doing and separately get on and do it, to those where he still thinks that anything that's not paid work is not worth doing and therefore must be her job.

[fossil97]

No supersare, you're not the only one. But what we're talking about is ideally there is enough flexibility that quite a lot of the week can be covered by both parents having flexible/reduced hours, working as a team, so you need less childcare if any. Cutting down on work, through flexible working etc, is not the same as dropping it completely, which you would have to do if you want to be around in person every minute for your DC.

Who can say what's best for children? I think good role models, close relationship with both parents, and an understanding that both men and women can wield a hoover are worth having.

[kickassangel]

I also think that being able to re-access the workplace after a break of a few years is very important.

I'm not convinced that kids need their parents to be their main carer - dd went to nursery from 4 months old - but they do need consistent care. Obviously dh & I did every morning, evening and weekends, and she had a key worker at nursery.

However, loads of people DO believe that young children need a parent to be around, and I think that they should be able to do that if they want to. But then they should also be able to get back into work. I can see the practical difficulties to that, so it's really more of an ideal than a serious suggestion.

Whether women are expected to work or not has always been a political and economical decision - most easily demonstrated by the 2nd World War, where first of all women were guilted into working during the war, then guilted into leaving the workplace so that men could have their jobs. It is convenient (and economically better) for a society to have the flexibility to expand and contract the workforce, but why it should be women who are seen as the expendables is deeply misogynistic.

[Devora]

I haven't read entire thread yet because I am too knackered after week juggling FT work with parenting two small children, plus multiple minor infections and afflictions caused by knackeredom. Reading the Slaughter piece only made me feel more whacked - and deeply inadequate - yet I did get quite a lot from it.

I really liked the way she talked about the 'you can have it all, only not all at once' myth telling women that the key is about life sequencing, and how actually impossible this is. You pay a career sacrifice if you have your children early, or middle, or late, it seems to me.

Where I thought her piece could have been improved is with a better analysis of:

(a) the role of men. I hate how this is always seen as a women's issue for women to work out. We won't get real change until men are prepared, or forced, to lose some workplace privileges, it seems to me. (And I don't say that in an aggressive way, or without being aware that loss of male workplace privilege = loss of family income, most of the time.)

(b) the role of capitalism. Her article points at the solution lies in giivng family higher social priority, everyone working less hours, more flexibility of quality careers across longer lifespans etc. But there are reasons why the post-industrial age has led to more work for fewer people, not more comfortable leisure for most people. There are reasons why the family is treated as the servant of capitalism, rather than the other way round. There are reasons why this problem is privatised as women's individual responsibility. Those reasons are the internal logic and insatiable demands of capitalism, surely?

Ok, off now to enjoy reading others' views.

[Emphaticmaybe]

This is probably going off a bit at a tangent but I was just thinking that if we are looking at 'having it all' from a feminist point of view I think we need to think about the other women that make it possible for us to do that.

It is incredibly important if women are to succeed in high ranking careers that they have reliable, good quality childcare, unless of course the father is taking that role. If childcare and cleaning jobs are generally low paid, low status and generally occupied by women I think this at least needs some thought.

I know that some very successful women, (Nicola Horlick comes to mind) talk about a team of people supporting them: nannies, housekeepers, cleaners etc and acknowledge their role in their success. I have also heard many negative comments about childcare, (a couple of times in this thread) when a nanny has not been able to facilitate the mother's work as much as she needs.

I think we need to bear in mind that nannies and childminders are working women and often mothers too and so face many of the same strains and stresses of life as those at the top of their careers - but usually with a fraction of the monetary rewards and none of the status.

Not all 'high flying' women are feminists but those who proclaim to be, in my view, can't ignore the fact that they are predominantly employing women in the roles of child-carers and cleaners in their stead. It is therefore doubly important that we acknowledge the value of these roles by providing them with good pay and conditions and also by employing men to redress the gender imbalance where possible.

I think we need to be concerned about all women having the best deal possible not just the top 10%.

[fedup2012]

Not the thread - but Ah! this old chestnut! I'm in the vague not sure camp on this one, everyone has different experiences and views. However I think you are asking the wrong people. We are all desperately trying to justify and make sense of the position we are in as mothers - whether in paid employment or not.

I suggest you go to Gransnet or another forum with older women who have the hindsight to be able to understand whether or not the path their family life took had any lasting effects, good or bad. I think it was Dame Shirley Williams who looked back wishing she had spent more time with her children. Ask the old feminists, they will give you a wiser response.

Never forget that most women do boring bog standard jobs and hardly see their children because they have to, not because it's a life choice. With basic rents at 1200 a month, the reality out there is a harsh world of low-paid labour and poor quality of life.

[OneLieIn]

I hate this thread. Having it all is a term imposed by men on women to keep us down. Ffs look around, ever heard that being said of a man?

[MayaAngelCool]

Hi Viv! You're one of the few journos whose work I consistently enjoy reading, so thanks for doing what you do so well! God, that sounds sycophantic, but it's not meant to be, I promise...!

Ok, haven't read article yet but here are my thoughts, purely from my own perspective and experience:

I gave up work for several years after becoming a mother. I'm now self-employed and am actually more ambitious and determined than I've ever been in my life. Age, motherhood and life experience have done that to me. I love what I do and need to put in a lot of hours to make it work. I have no problem with DH doing the caring so that I can work; what a bizarre, 1950s notion!

I want to work p/t until the kids are older, but I'm also prepared to go wherever the work takes me - travel can be involved - as long as we have excellent childcare arrangements. If my children's needs weren't properly met first I would not be able to cut off from that and go to work.

So I'm definitely in the Compromise Camp. Each to their own, and it is bloody hard doing all the juggling, but I sort of thrive on it as well, if I'm honest.

[Snog]

I think we have not gone far enough in society in achieving equality
The problem imo now is that in order to make further progress both men and women have to give up stuff they currently enjoyin order to build what imo would be a far better society.

So men have to give up working longer than women and earning more than women, and finding it easier to make progress in their careers (a generalism of course).

Women have to give up the "norm" of being able to have 12 months mat leave and then spending more time at home with the kids and less time at work than men.

I am not optimistic that this will happen, and if it does I think it can only happen very slowly, by degrees.

My dream is that the new norm is for equal and mandatory mat leave for men and women and a new norm for the working week of 30 hours. I think this would also help to address the massive gap between rich and poor that I view as highly undesirable and unhelpful to society.

Women will gain financial independence and true equality of opportunity in the workplace. We could expect that 50% of MPs will be women, and 50% of the highest earners will be women. Women will gain practical support at home from men and more equality of parenting responsibilities.

Men will be able to share the burden of providing for their families and spend more time enjoying their families.

Decisions made for society and in business would more reflect the needs of everyone within society.

[Emphaticmaybe]

Popcornia - my post was not at all intended to have a go at any women responsibly employing another women and I sincerely apologise if I gave that impression.

I am really sympathetic to the conflict that working mother's have - I have 3 daughters, as a feminist I think it's vital that women have access to all areas of the workforce - I want mothers in top jobs.

However both my mother and sister have worked all their lives in childcare and cleaning jobs and I have seen both sides of the equation. It surely is not unreasonable to want the best for all working women and to raise the status of these areas?

[VivGroskop]

Wow. Many many many insightful comments. In fact, no insight-free comments. Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to post -- not easy to take time off from HAVING IT ALL.

supersare "... what's best for our children..." This point comes up reliably whenever these issues are discussed and rightly so. "But who will think of the poor children...!" The problem is, the answer to the question, "What's best for the children?" is different in every single household and is dependent on the personality, situation and experience of the parents and children themselves. And these factors are variable so you can find yourself having found "the answer" (part-time working, not working, working loads but having good childcare etc) and then suddenly something else happens and that is no longer "the answer". Annoying!

fedup2012 "You're asking the wrong people... go to Gransnet, they will give you a wiser response." Very very good idea. And for anyone interested in how successful (whatever that means) but often eccentric/obsessive women solved the conundrum of having three children or more plus a full career in years gone by, the case studies in Valerie Grove's The Compleat Woman: Marriage, Motherhood, Career - Can She Have It All? (1987) are amazing -- includes Fay Weldon, Margaret Forster, Elizabeth Longford, Mavis Nicholson
www.amazon.co.uk/The-Compleat-Woman-Marriage-Motherhood/dp/0701129255?tag=mumsnet&ascsubtag=mnforum-21 (out-of-print, 1p second-hand on Amazon)
I wrote a follow-up asking what happened to them and where the next generation is up to with this in 2008
www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/mar/03/women.fashion
There's no way I could write this now because of the recession -- the game has totally changed and people's priorities with it. I think "having it all" is being replaced by "staying afloat" (both idiot phrases but you know what I mean).

OneLieIn (and others) "I hate this thread" Aw, you don't mean that. You hate the phrase "Having it all" and are annoyed it is never applied to men. Too right, sista. But I do like the way that the phrase allows us to talk about this and dissect it. As a society we do treat men and women differently we shouldn't but we do and stupid phrases like "having it all" give us the chance to examine why. Of course, in real-life everyday language no-one says, "Oh, she's got it all." Except when speaking of Jordan, of course. She really does have EVERYTHING. Or at least the Gross Domestic Product of a small country.

[saintlyjimjams]

I agree that 'having it all' has been replaced by 'staying afloat'

[MiniTheMinx]

There's no way I could write this now because of the recession -- the game has totally changed and people's priorities with it. I think "having it all" is being replaced by "staying afloat" (both idiot phrases but you know what I mean)

We are in the middle of a huge crisis of capitalism, a social/economic system that has shaped not just the way we live and produce but the way in which we make value judgements about people and ourselves.

Do you think the ground beneath us moved to such an extent that the labour market and the material conditions of women's lives have changed irrevocably?

[Snog]

Not at all, Minx
It could all go back
Look at Afghanistan

[rushingrachel]

I really agree with your previous post Snog. Change, any meaningful answer, will need to come from and in the workplace. The long hours culture in my profession is what made it very hard for us to find the holy grail: "balance".

A thing that vexes me mildly though is this sense that men manage to have it all whereas women are compromising. I think the balance is skewed in that direction but my husband certainly doesnt have it all. He has a good job, and no worries about our children because I am around. But he doesn't see them from one end of the week to the next because of his working hours, and he'd like to. He's always stressed right around now about getting away on holiday (we cancel a lot of holidays) and we often sit on a beach somewhere with him trying to pretend he's not checking his blackberry. He'd like to make school assemblies and take the boys to swimming lessons. But the "on demand" culture in the legal profession simply doesn't allow it. Clients dictate deadlines, he meets them, and how he does it and the family cost of doing it is nobody's problem but his. And finally he gets virtually no him time. Because he's aware I get slightly loopy with the kids by the end of the week he treats it as his responsibility to take them off my hands at weekends a bit. So he works mega weeks and gets shouted at by toddlers at weekends. It's a pretty toxic deal in some ways.

The world needs to rebalance a bit and put respect for the family back into the centre ground. That would make happier men and women.

[kickassangel]

I think partly people don't realise how hard it can be just to stay alive.

Capitalism is demanding of its workers. Yet it is just a system which we, people, invented, and can therefore change or abolish.

BUT there's a reason it has developed, not entirely due to greedy top dogs. It is easier than everyone farming for themselves, and easier to implement than communism. We live in a mish/mash of capitalism with a dash of socialism and we just kind of muddle along. I don't think that it's possible to have any other way than muddling along, btw, as we can't just control the entire country and have everything fully organised/regimented.

And that is reflected in how we organise our own lives. you kind of do have to make it up as you go along. Very few people have a plan for their lives and it all ticks along nicely. I think we need to be more open to change and how our lives develop.

It does mean that compromises are needed.

However, the fact remains that typically women seem to be the ones whose career suffers the most to keep the family together. There are changes that can be made on the macro scale - employment law, benefits, societal attitudes etc, but eventually we have to look at our own lives. And it's hard. It's hard enough holding together a job and childcare and a house. If we don't have a partner who does 50% (for whatever reason, from the lazy arse to the works away scenario) then we are the ones doing everything. Try to add into that mix standing up for ourselves, then we are looking at some real stress. Let's face it, do we all want to live through that, or do we just take the compromises, if only for our own sanity, and dream of a better future?

I also think that as much as we'd all love to have a fulfilling career, we have to accept that not everyone is able to have that. Society demands that there are people who shovel up the shit. Without those people even the top lawyers/bankers/doctors etc would have to come home and do their own street cleaning, getting rid of garbage etc. Lets be honest - when we pool those resources (ie council tax pays for rubbish collection) - we are doing this to enable the majority to get out of doing the crappy work, and then paying other people to do it for us. Then we tend to look down on them for it, when we should be thankful to have dodged that bullet ourselves.

[kickassangel]

Sorry to keep going, but I'm on a roll.

I think that the expectation of 'me' time and leisure time is quite a modern thing. I'm glad ti exists, but it's not that long ago that people routinely worked 5 1/2 days a week, school was on Saturdays as well, and the idea of annual leave, bank holidays etc were barely in existence. These are all things that have arrived with industrialisation.

Also, retirement is another modern development. National pensions were originally intended for just the final few years of someone's life. It used to be that people worked hard and maybe got a couple of years when the family supported them before they died. State pensions were meant to ease that situation. Now there's an idea that people would be able to work for 30 years, and the money will support them for the next 20 or 30 years. That just doesn't make economic sense, yet look at how much resistance there is every time there are changes to pension rules.

I live in the US, and there just isn't this idea that you deserve to retire at 60. People just expect to keep working until close to 70. They kind of gradually scale back on their work, and probably do some part time work even in their 70s. They are quite shocked at examples of people (like my MIL) who are fit and healthy, but not working, just cos they reached 60. They also work long hours, but would absolutely expect to be able to go in late so they can see their kid's assembly. I've found this even with solicitors, financial advisors etc. They also only get 10 days leave a year, and this includes sick days. BUT, again, taking the day off to see their kid graduate, or missing a meeting for that reason, is totally fine, even amongst higher earners.

I do think there needs to be a bit more of a realistic view that we have to work and be productive in order to survive.

[Emphaticmaybe]

Great post Kissassangel - couldn't agree more.

[summerflower]

From the OP:

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> If we don't have a partner who does 50% (for whatever reason, from the lazy arse to the works away scenario) then we are the ones doing everything. Try to add into that mix standing up for ourselves, then we are looking at some real stress. Let's face it, do we all want to live through that, or do we just take the compromises, if only for our own sanity, and dream of a better future?

[saintlyjimjams]

Do women want it to change though? My dh is the main earner (by some distance) and works long hours. He doesn't like working long hours though, he does it because he feels he has no choice. The logistics of caring for three children, including one severely disabled mean that we really need one person at home (I work, because we need the cash, but run my own business from home - it would be impossible for me to be employed).

I'm not convinced there are huge numbers of women wanting to be facilitated to work longer hours. I rather suspect there are a lot (and men as well) who want to work fewer hours.

[summerflower]

I wouldn't say I want to work longer hours, but I would like to meet OH somewhere in the middle, so that I can do my job with less pressure and not be juggling quite so much, thus enjoy time with the children more - I don't really see why he can't work more flexibly to be here more, and I see it as a choice not to.

[AnnieLobeseder]

saintly - I'm not sure the issue is that women want to work the longer hours, the issue is that all employees seem to be expected to work these longer hours in order to be taken seriously, and men are more able to meet these expectations. DH works long hours, I do not. But I wish I could, because I get looks from my boss and colleagues when I leave at 4pm on Wednesdays to take my DDs to gymnastics, and I have to leave at 5:20 on the dot every day to get the girls before childcare closes, while most people stay on past 7.

The whole long hours culture needs to change. It's not good for men who lose out on time with their families, not to mention the stress of not enough down-time. And it's not good for women who are seen as lesser employees when they can't work the long hours expected.