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.

I agree with Metabilis3. When people enter my profession, it is 50:50 male to female ratio. At the top of my profession it is 90:10 male to female. I can't believe the disparity is down to choice.

Hi fruity. I added my personal line a few pages back. Not particularly in tune with the thread though because I'm one that gave up juggling. I too am a Cambridge graduate, did my post grad at Harvard. And all of that plus my City career was a big step away from my comp in Ipswich. Love Ipswich and loved my comp but I come from no haven of privilege or snobbery. It was hard graft and I was paying student loans into my thirties. So pre kids I would have given short shrift to anyone who told me I would genuinely be happy not working. But I am. I was proud of my work and I wasn't doing the job I should have done at work or home. And I greedily love being home with my 2 boys. I've done right by both institutions by staying home and don't buy into the theory I should be economically useful right now. I was before, will be again. And there's no team I'm letting down. The only one I'm playing for is my little family and we are doing ok.

2 pearls of wisdom reading your story. Firstly if you don't have your childcare sorted out in really nauseating levels of detail and backup you will struggle. It will cost you a fortune and be a part time management role in itself but if you don't have that in place you can't do much at all. Secondly don't beat yourself up ... You're doing the best you can. And whether you decide to go full throttle career wise or give up completely nothing invalidates any previous intellectual achievement, those speak for themselves.

OK. I stand corrected

so why does it seem to be women who feel the pressure most once they have children as well as a career?
why does it seem to be women who most want to have time at home with the kids?

and why aren't men told that they're 'having it all' when they have kids and continue to work?

rushingrachel - 'I was proud of my work and I wasn't doing the job I should have done at work or at home' -

that's how I feel. I have a job that has been the most important thing in my life certainly for the last ten years and has given me a unique fulfilment, not to mention a healthy income. Not doing it well, and not enjoying it, has been bloody awful.

In terms of career, I've been ready and well up for a fight with anyone I felt was standing in my way - especially if I got the vibe that I was being dismissed or my work categorised in a negative way because I was a woman.

Turns out I am much worse at dealing with my own conflicted feelings about it all!

Because they are listened to duff narratives. Because they bought what the patriarchy was selling without even enquiring the true price. That's why. I reckon.

Fruity I could not deal with conflicted feelings either. I was, I hope and believe, a very good lawyer. Probably better at lawyering than mummying. But I view that as a good thing. If I choose to go back to it in a few years hopefully it will stand me in good stead.

I find the theory of all of this interesting which is why I got involved in the thread, but in reality theory played no part in my decisions. Those were based uniquely on my family and in particular my 2 boys. I'm doing the best I can for them as I see it.

Meta, I would agree with you, but lots of people wouldn't. Many years ago when I did A level sociology I remember reading about studies where women were doing 60 to 100 hours per week of women work.

Even if you take the lower figure and say that half of it probably doesn't need doing when everyone is out of the house, then it still leaves 30 hours per week or 15 hours per adult (if in a partnership) in top of a full time job. I think that anyone who isn't stressed by that is not doing their share.

Btw, when we use the phrase high flying career can people give an example of that? I was head of dept in a sec school earning 38k 4 years ago. I wouldn't count that as high flying but obviously it's not an entry level job either.

Earning >£100k. International reputation in your field (or maybe beyond). That sort of thing. Some people might put the lower earnings cap higher but that would actually cut out an awful lot of women, according to the stats.

Sorry, I don't really mean 'cap' (it doesn't even make sense in the context of the word 'lower'). My excuse is that my brain is addled due to my vicious evil abscess and my fear about my imminent trip to the dentist. I meant earnings de minimus amount.

But you really aren't a high flyer earning 50K. That's an entry level (or at least, entry level post professional qualification) salary in some jobs in the city. I know that the city isn't everything, but when you are talking about high flying careers then obviously it is relevant. The top 10% of earners aren't all high flyers - by definition.

It's actually Very Important. Men know what a high flying career is. They don't argue about it. They know when they are at the top, and they know when they aren't. It's no surprise that the vast majority of people earning >100k are men. If we draw a different distinction for women - that if you're a woman, earning >£50k is good going and you should take that (and be thankful) what do you get? You get what we currently have - plenty of women represented at those lower mid range levels, being told directly and by implication that as women, they should thank their lucky stars they have done that well, because most haven't, and to cap their ambition at that point. And very very few women actually earning at the top of the range. Because that's not for the likes of them.

Think about primary schools. The overwhelming number of primary school teachers are women. Until recently, the overwhelming number of primary school heads were men (this may have changed now). What's wrong with that picture?

Of course, I don't think anyone is attempting to restrict having it all to only people with high flying careers. But someone asked what we meant by high flying so I gave my opinion.

I think restricting the discussion to women, or people, earning over 100k a year makes this a bit of a rarefied debate. It just isn't relevant to how most women live. For a start, any conversation about child care has a different slant - trying to pay for it on 50 grand a year is a different kettle of fish to when you are earning double. And when you are on less than 50 grand, it's different again...

I do feel this is where feminism leaves a lot of women behind, to make a sweeping statement. Are we only of interest if we have careers that bring us 100k plus? It is possible to have a career, rather than a job, which will never bring you half that. A lot of the caring professions, for example. When I think about women in the workplace and issues around that, I really don't think just of corporate high fliers. Maybe that is the point of this thread and initial post though, and I've just missed it.

I wasn't suggesting we restricted the discussion. Someone asked what a high flying job was and gave an example of their previous job in terms of pecuniary recompense. I gave my opinion citing both pecuniary and non pecuniary attributes. It is Very Important that women shouldn't feel excluded from aspiring to a 'high flying job' because of some outmoded notion of 'knowing their place' or 'a good salaryfor a woman' but obviously by definition truly high flying jobs (and I think they pull in way, way more than £100k to be honest) are held by only a teensy weeny number of people. so for this debate any job would be relevant but I don't think we should ever let ourselves be sucked into a narrative which set some lower limit for 'good' women's earnings than was set for 'good' men's earnings. Basing any limits on what the biggest proportion of women earn right now would clearly be flawed since we a not appropriately represented at the top echelons.

It's 2 different points really.

1. Are women able to be high flyers and if not why not?
2. Why are women who have a job and children told they have it all when men aren't labelled in the same way?

And why are either of these so hard? (or am I just a moaning Minnie?)

I agree that a lot of people almost ignore the top 1%. They are almost invisible to most of us and a lot of criticism is leveled at other people lower down the pat structure.

There's a huge number of threads on here that criticize teachers and think they're overpaid. But they almost never reach those top salaries

I get what Metabilis is saying. I work in the city and earn below the cut-off mentioned and would not be considered "high-flying" by my peer group. Compared the UK population as a whole, I would though.

I think there is an unwritten narative (including in my own mind) that I am doing pretty well considering the circumstances and limit my own ambitions further. Plus back in the heyday when I did get a good bonus (not millions), my mum said I should "consider myself a very lucky girl".

Now considering I have nearly 20 years experience in my field and am better qualified that most/many CEOs in my area - I bet Stephen Hester et al don't consider themselves "very lucky boys", do they?

Despite myself, I still feel that somehow to challenge for these tops jobs/board positions is getting a bit above my station and that everyone would be more comfortable if toned down the ambition a bit.

but is that a class thing of because you are female?

I know what you mean. my parents wanted me to do well, but not too well, iykwim. it I became a headteacher, I know that my parents would worry that I couldn't handle the pressure, or that people would think it strange that a woman from my background (modestly mc) had done so much.

It's like the people who make comments about William & KAte and how she/her family have 'risen' so far. There is great reluctance from some to accept social flexibility.

Men don't have a problem with social mobility. Or with aspiration. I mean, some men probably do. But as a group? No. They are cool with it. And women are cool with men being socially mobile too (think of all the situations where you have seen proud working class mothers introduce or talk about my son the doctor or my son the lawyer or my son the professor). It's just women who are supposed to know their place and talk about fluffy kittens. :(

I think most of the bitching I have seen about the Middletons has nothing to do with Kate marrying William but is mainly focused on her mother being uber rich as a result of her business. I've not seen any opprobrium directed at her pilot father. But then, if I read a paper at all I read the Graun, so, you know - I'm not really likely to encounter much talk about them really.

Ah BelleCurve Despite myself, I still feel that somehow to challenge for these tops jobs/board positions is getting a bit above my station and that everyone would be more comfortable if toned down the ambition a bit.

The well-known Impostor Syndrome