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 practicalities of parenting and childcare are a full time job in themselves. I dont think in the future this will be so much of a gender issue as it is now with the increasing number of families sharing childcare between both dads and mums.

Having children is a life choice and generally requires the main carer to take time out of work to do their other job of parenting. I wonder if a man was at home with their baby instead of a woman for the first year would the impact emotionally, economically and in his career be the same as for many women. I expect it would be.

If I didn't have to work around school holidays, pickup times, days of sickness, sleepless nights, food demands, housework, washing etc etc I would be more likely to have the energy, time and devotion to work on my career.

It's a society thing as well, if men had babies the world would be a very different place.

@kickass I find it slightly sad that you use the so few people can have a 'high flying' career argument as a reason for why women shouldn't even be bothered. Yes, few people can have H-F careers. By definition. If everyone did them they would be average flying careers. Or whatever. But there is no valid ability reason why men as opposed to women should have them. And yet overwhelmingly, it's men who have these careers. Part of the reason for this is the naysaying narrative spouted by men which women have just bought. Such a shame.

Metabilis3 Yes! Down with nay-saying narratives! This shall be the motto for the revolution!
kickassangel "We are made to feel that way by how society raises us" -- yes. But let's REFUSE to feel that way. Yeah, right on!
FedUp2012 thanks for that Compleat Woman link
This piece revisited some of Valerie Grove's original interviewees twenty years on -- pleasingly if depressingly, they all reckon it's much more difficult now
www.telegraph.co.uk/family/8119572/Can-a-woman-ever-have-it-all.html

For the Pollyannas in our midst, see this for some nauseating aphorisms these inspiring quotes about work/life balance:
timemanagementanswers.com/worklife-balance/favourite-worklife-balance-quotes/
Maybe Oprah put it best when she said, "You can have it all. You just can't have it all at once." Also applies to cake. Apparently.

Indeed. I am so fed up with people suggesting women should just roll over and concede without even giving it a go. If Phillipa Fawcett, for example, had listened to that sort of talking, or Elizabeth Garret Anderson, then that would be sad wouldn't it.

www.telegraph.co.uk/family/8119572/Can-a-woman-ever-have-it-all.html#disqus_thread

Posting this one again with link in place.

This article was either based on the documentary or the other way round - my guess it was the former as many of the quotes are directly from the

One of the things highlighted in this article is that it has become much harder since these women did what they did. They would have had a manageable mortgage so they could pursue the less well-paid aspects of their careers (writing and politics) comfortably. Shirley Hughes had a massive house in Holland Park in the days when they were being slum cleared and worth only pennies.

Most people now pay vast sums for their mortgage and that is I believe a key factor in ensuring women can't have it all. It has become a hard slog to cover the financial expectations and the other expectations (parenting, schooling/homework, health & beauty) which also make it harder.

Cleaners are often paid more than secretaries so where Shirley and her sisters could afford one to take the drudgery out of their lives, we are forced to either do our own or work double shifts to afford one.

The hard slog just to keep afloat has made it not worth the trouble, for me. The world of work can wait. I've still got over 20 years of it to look forward to.

'Having it all' is a complete red herring of a concept though. It's designed to be something at which everyone fails - thus we see people giving up, rolling over and saying 'the world of work can wait'. I'm not that clever. I'm pretty lazy. I have a condition (dyspraxia) which makes a whole range of things which most people take for granted, difficult or impossible for me, and which hampers me socially. I come from a council estate background and my parents both died when I was in my early 20s. If I can manage a great career, 3 kids, a marriage that isn't falling apart, and a large number of hobbies and interests (I work to live, despite having done very well at it, I never have and never will live to work) - then frankly anyone can. The only difference between me and others is that when people say 'you can't do that' my first instinct is to ask why and my second instinct is to decide they are probably wrong and yes I very can. If more women had that attitude we would live in a different world.

"If men had babies the world would be a very different place"

Problem with that statement is that it is the fact we can have babies that defines so much of what being a woman is all about - lots of things follow from our basic anatomy. I just can't imagine men having babies and still being men !

@metabilis - I wasn't trying to imply that women shouldn't aspire to fly high, just referring to one of the links, and that it focussed on the high flyers. Whereas I think that the reality for most people isn't that. Also, people tend to talk about women 'having it all' when in fact they probably have an average job, an OK marriage and a couple of kids. But it is talked about as if we're living some kind of luxurious indulgent lifestyle, instead of being the hard work that it really is.

I do 'have it all' in that I'm married with a job and a child. BUT I noticed a huge difference in my life after having dd.

1. I worked in a place where women likely to have children were just not promoted. Having worked to become a Head of Department, I suddenly found that I got no further promotions, even though I applied for them. Guess what - men and women guaranteed not to have kids got those posts. Every time. In fact, when I left that place, my job was filled by a man who wasn't even interviewed - just given the post, although there were women with better qualifications, experience etc.
2. I got hassled by certain members of management when I wouldn't do extra meetings after school, or before school, or during the holidays. When I told them I'd already worked 60 hours that week, so no I wouldn't be doing that extra piece of paperwork over the weekend, it could wait a day, I was bullied. I also had, in writing, that I had had my 'goodwill' from the school by being allowed 1 day off to look after dd when she was sick. Fair enough if that was their policy, but male staff were given several weeks in one case, as paid leave, because his daughter was ill. Apparently if Dad has to take time off it must be really serious, so it's allowed, but mum is just doing it because she has the wrong priorities. Other female colleagues had similar experiences.
3. I just found it hard to be as energetic in my job. At times dh worked abroad, and that impacted on the number of hours I was able to spend at work. It was incredibly stressful, always feeling like I was running to catch up, never enough sleep, no time to keep on top of housework etc. After a few years, I was close to a breakdown, having panic attacks when thinking about work. OF course, if I had a nicer work environment it could have been so much better.

THankfully I am now in a job I love, where being a parent is supported by my employers, and I work long hours, but never get so fraught as before.

However, - throughout this period DH's job has gone from good to better. It made sense for his job to take the main priority as he earned so much more than me. And that's important. He does a typical male job, I do a typical female job. We have similar qualifications, are close in age etc. But he has out earnt me so much, that I have become a trailing spouse and am now reliant on him.

I know that I'm a statistic of one, but I don't think that my situation is unusual. Until women are able to have equality in the work place, then they won't be able to make equal decisions about their families.

@kickass Ah, but you see I am also a statistic of one. And my situation is that I am the one in the marriage earning hugely much more. I am the one doing international travel. So, I have a great job a great marriage and 3 kids and I don't see why people want to paint that as so impossibly rare.

Blimey! well done Metabilis3! There are definitely women out there who are happy with their lot and managing (and out-earning men) but I suspect that if a lot of us look around at our friends, colleagues and peers, we see that is the exception rather than the rule. The tale of kickassangel sounds horribly familiar to me. And we are all guilty of a double-standard in terms of putting men on a pedestal for their sterling childcare efforts when in fact we should not bat an eyelid and make like it's just normal (which, of course, it is).

Fascinated by how to change workplace attitudes like the unconscious processes kickassangel writes about. You can't point them out in that workplace or you'll lose your job. Or can you? Anyone got any sneaky tips to change these behaviours and remain loved by the powers-that-be?

Thanks to fedup2012 for putting that link back up -- your name does you a disservice! You are full of invention and enthusiasm!

This is the kind of thing I think about A LOT atm - and I am really struggling to work out what I think and feel.

In no particular order - I think somewhere along the line, as a high achiever Oxbridger woman in a creative career, and a feminist, with the desire to Do Something in terms of ambition, I totally bought into the idea that I was supposed to be happy and fulfilled 'juggling' a busy career with x number of kids.

Now I'm 40 with one toddler, realising I do want another child and need to get a move on, self employed, having taken very little time away from my successful career -

And I've mostly been so exhausted and ill this last 2 years that a lot of the time I've been unable to enjoy either my child or my job. Let me add - I am SO NOT trying to do perfect mum stuff. No handknitting organic meals etc. When I am trying to do both work and look after my son I feel like I am barely scraping by in either. And I can't stand that. I'm not HAPPY or healthy.

It's so complicated. i enjoy the days where I just have to think about DS and looking after him - I enjoy, for a few hours, the chance to get on with my work while someone else looks after him - but I don't want a whole day away from him. That is just how I FEEL. I miss him. The issue for me is not that I feel 'de-feminised' by my partner doing childcare - the issue is that I miss looking after my son. I am not interested in a complete 'role reversal' situation, for example.

I feel like I'm letting myself and women down, in some way. This isn't rational, I know. I also know that I had a very extreme work situation when DS was born, so neither I nor my partner took time off, we just keep working as well as looking after DS. Obvs some maternity leave would have helped.

I am beginnng to realise that unless I sort out a lot more childcare - basically full time - then I can't hope to continue in my career with the same degree of success or on the same trajectory. But I don't want to see less of my son. I don't know how happy or resigned I am about achieving less with my career as a result. Not very happy, atm, but then I feel such relief on days when I don't have to work.

so I don't know where that leaves me, really. I think the most sensible thing is to accept that for a few years now, I am focusing on small children and not on my career. between me and dp, we need to make enough money to get by - but my career will pretty much grind to a halt. After that, who knows. I may of course not have a career to go back to.

FWIW, as a firm feminist and believer that a woman's place is wherever she wants to be, as long as she puts the effort in - I have every sympathy for women who stop work (who are able to) to try and do one thing instead of two. I feel that whatever configuration my life takes from now on, in terms of work and family, I just want to do less, be less exhausted and enjoy more of whatever it is I do.

I would add that a key part of all this is my growing conviction that very few male partners take on what I would call a fair share of running a household. In the most basic way (staying on top of bills, cleaning, laundry, food shopping etc). I wonder how much more feasible a career would feel right now if I didn't feel like the bulk of organising and running this family fell to me. That's different from spending time with my son, btw. The life admin of having to stay on top of budgets and groceries and why the hell are there no dry towels etc isn't childcare - it just tends to fall to the person doing the childcare.

PS I have been the major breadwinner in this relationship to date. In case you couldn't guess.

Both sexes must make sacrifices in order to acheive a fairer and better society imo and I think there is much reluctance in both corners to do this.

Women need to give up on having the last say in matters of the home and children, and not to expect to get favourable treatment in divorces. We need to stop expecting men to provide for us financially and to be the only ones to take parental leave.

Men need to give up expecting women to take their share of domestic chores and childcare and to take 50% of parental leave to look after babies under 12 months and sick children.

Ok, have read more of the the thread now - a few more points -

Yes, working hours/work culture/lack of flexibility is a huge factor. The star at work is the one who puts their hand up and says 'I'll work late! not a problem!' - not the woman, and it usually is a woman, who says 'I can't, I need to pick the kids up..... '

The New economics Foundation did some work on this recently. They recommended we have a shorter working week, about 3 days long, I believe. Someone told me recently in the UK we have the longest working week and the unhappiest children in Europe. Anyone know if that's true?

Can we please, please not fall into the tabloid trap of thinking that mummies who whine about how hard Having It All is are basically silly bitches who make life hard for themselves? 'oooh, well if you will try and handbake cupcakes for the school fete and knit all their clothes yourself and be a domestic goddess and never have a hair out of place - well, no wonder you're tired, silly little woman!' PLEASE don't pull that one, Viv. Please. Can't you see that's just giving women a kicking instead of acknowledging that they might have real problems?

And yes, of course this is not just a female issue. Where are the dads? In particular, where are all the dads who apparently would like to work less and spend more time with their children? Why are they so damn silent?

My hunch is that they don't exist as much as we like to think. For a lot of men, being a very part time parent but a full on career person seems to suit them. I seriously think that if a lot of men were very unhappy with the status quo, things would be changing.

fruitybread - the one thing that's stopping you taking time off is that you think your career will 'grind to a halt'. It seems that this fear of falling is what stops many women.

I found that looking after children full time taught me a lot of new skills and I have gone in a completely new direction career wise (working towards it anyway!). It wasn't a step backward in my case, it was a step forward.

Viv I find this thread really interesting, partly because I saw that documentary and thought 'see, I knew that all along'. But I have been harping on for years that staying at home isn't the feminist treachery that women make out, and it often makes children miserable and that seems to be completely secondary in the debate.

Call it 'exaggeration', not invention .

You're right, my name does me disservice. I was fedup a few days ago because I found I was making every decision regarding family, home, holidays, work etc. I used to whinge at DP for not cooperating and it was getting me down. I decided a few days ago that rather than consult DP about every decision to get zero response, I am going to have to man up and make them on my own. This has nothing to do with feminism though, it's just a relationship thing.

Fedup - well, I have one of those 'vocation careers' - it's actually my third and has taken me a while to get into it, so I'm not thinking that I want to walk away from it, or that it might be nice to try something else career-wise. It's not just fear of not being able to get back into it, although that's certainly there - it is a vastly competitive field and very few people working in it are part time - I just don't want to walk away from it. Like I don't want to walk away from my son!

That said, I refuse to feel exhausted and ill for the rest of my life. And it does matter to me very much that my son loves being with me, and I love being with him (mostly, not always, I'm not insane) - and I am happy when he is happy.

i do wish, btw, and Fedup this isn't anything you've said, that people would stop confusing mothers who like spending time with their children with mothers who are 'domestic goddesses' (there's another phrase that needs its arse kicking). I have never been houseproud, or anything other than intermittently competent at cleaning. I don't bake (got that? I DON'T BAKE!), am a patchy cook (I don't find it hugely satisfying) - I can't knit or sew or whatever. I love being active and outdoors, and enjoy my house largely because it is where my books, bed and telly are. Can we please accept that 'nurturing' has many expressions, and doesn't have to mean a mummy in a pinny baking a cake? Nothing against cakes btw, I like eating them.

Ha ha - cross post with fedup. Sorry, didn't see you'd manned up while I was typing!

@fruity I am sorry you feel exhausted and ill. But surely you realise that the fact that you feel like that doesn't mean that every working mother does? Actually I feel like death right now because I have an abscess (dentist first thing tomorrow :( ) but I'm not blaming that on my job! Or indeed the fact that I have 3 kids.

Metabilis - no, for sure - I am not saying 'working mothers feel x' - I am saying 'this is the way I feel.'

And I feel guilt about saying that that - I feel a failure in some ways, for not loving the 'juggling successful career and family' thing, or even being able to juggle it competently. And I only have one kid. You have three.

I now feel half like I should be apologising for letting the team down somehow. But it has taken me a while to admit to myself that I am struggling. I have to be able to work out how to live the live I want, whatever that is - not the one that other people want me to have.

It doesn't sound like you are letting the side down. :) it sounds like you are not completely well and probably need a rest. And maybe your DH could be helping you more. I'm sure I wouldn't be able to cope without my DH who is basically the best husband in the world, although crap at hoovering. Nobody can do anything on their own. We form families so that we can be in a family - because a family can give you strength and support and possibly even help with the hoovering. I couldn't do my job as a single working mother so I do thank all of our lucky stars the DH is as brilliant as he is.

Interesting thread. The phrase "having it all" just enrages me because it is such a sexist term (as others have said earlier). It implies that a woman ought to be able to do two things simultaneously which are physically impossible - have both a full time high flying career and be at home full time. Because unless a woman is able to do both things simultaneously then whatever she does along the spectrum from full time working to full time at home, she will be criticised.

There are many things that make me angry about the phrase. For example, women at both ends of the spectrum just can't win. If a woman works full time then she must be a crap mother, if she is at home full time well she's not really contributing much to society. It also makes me so angry that there is little expectation on men to manage these two mutually exclusive things. A man who is at one end of the spectrum, with a high flying career is just seen by society as providing for his family so shoulodn't be burdened with the household chores or raising the kids, and a man who is a full time dad, well he is just a treasure. Any man that combines working with lifting a finger around the house and semi raising the kids, well they are just the perfect men.

What enrages me all the more about this phrase is that it always seems to be women who are obsessed by it. It feels like women use it to beat themselves up or other women up on something that is physically impossible to achieve because it would involve being in 2 places at once.

Fruity I'm with you. This is why I don't understand all the glass ceiling stuff, and women not being able to get to the top. I can appreciate it and agree that it is wrong, but I would much rather have a happy dd who I want to spend time with than be at the top of my career. I think a lot of women feel the same. It isn't about being a homemaker (bleurgh!) it is about WANTING to be with dc and enjoying time with them, and that is more imortant than getting to the top of the career ladder.

I heard the speech from the Girls Schools headteacher. I agreed with it in principle, but also felt huge amounts of cynicism. That's what I was told, and it was a bit of a shock when I didn't feel like that. I think all future policy makers and careers people need to think about this a bit more, I'm not sure that the lack of women in Senior roles is to do with opportunity. I think perhaps it is to do with choice

Sorry Orange but I think you are wrong. I think that there are plenty of people who choose not to go for it career wise and that is their
Reorganize. But I know that there are plenty who do want to go for it and who are prevented by, among other things, the glass ceiling. Very few men actually want to go for it, career wise. Fewer still get there. And yet, so many more men than women. It's not just choice.