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.

Blimey. LOADS of brilliant posts. Wow. Thanks so much, everyone. We should PUBLISH this thread. It would be like 50 Shades of Grey only without the nipple clamps.

kickassangel restates the billion dollar questions

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?

1. That's what we're talking about here, I think, really, sidetracks about how we define "high-flying" aside. The "50-50 male-female on entry, 90-10 further up the scale" bit really stands out for me. We all see that to be true. I think in theory women are "able" to get these jobs if they want them but in reality because there are STILL (sighs) fewer women in these jobs, they are STILL harder to get. And the factors are multiple and overlapping.

People are still incredibly conservative about wimmins issues (see Twitter feed @vivgroskop today on whether Yahoo should appoint a pregnant woman loads of people see this as a problem I was a bit shocked, not least as it is illegal to discriminate against a pregnant job candidate). Some women do want to bow out of work for a while and that's fine but it does encourage some of the more conservative thinkers in our society to think that's what all women should want/do secretly want. Recession means it's getting harder to protect hard-won flexibility/part-time/mat leave legislation. There is still a huge societal judgement against women who don't conform to the "mommy track" like Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, who has specifically said that she will not take any maternity leave and yet her appointment is still questioned and seen as weird. (Meanwhile others will say she is being un-feminist by not using her hard-won maternity rights and that it sets a bad precedent for other women. I say it's a personal choice.)

1. Easy! Because of over two millennia of having women as the second sex. The impact of that can't be wiped out overnight or even in the space of a few decades. But, yes, of course, it's annoying too...

with respect, point 2 above isn't in my opinion looking for an answer like you have supplied VivGroskop, we all already know the Why, what we are actually looking for here surely is the remedy? Do you have any views as to what this should be?

I heard that in New Zealand everyone was entitled to a 6 month sabbatical after 10 years work. I doubt this still applies and it may have only been in public service jobs.

One of the advantages of stopping work to bring up children is that it allows you to take stock and change career if necessary. It can be a very productive time.

"Are women able to be high flyers and if not why not?". I kind of find this question astonishing. I think it's a mindset thing and also what expectations people have of a girl when she is growing up. One of my friends (who is also a work colleague) always says that you have to back yourself first before you can expect anyone else to do so. I said in an earlier post that in my profession its 50:50 on entry and 90:10 at the top. I am one of the 10 (and in the top 1% of earners), but it has honestly never occured to me to question whether I was able to be a high flyer. IME, men don't tend to question whether they can be a high flyer, and if they're not, or not getting to where they want to be, they generally tend to look external factors. Equally ime, women tend to look internal factors (i.e. themselves). I think this has to change before more women get into more senior positions.

@novice exactly. We are in the same position and seem to have the same attitude. :)

Viv - I'm a bit confused.

You say it's 'fine' if some women do want to bow out of work for a while - but then say that 'it does encourage some of the more conservative thinkers in our society to think that's what all women should want/do secretly want.'

Really? Are you serious?

Because just after that, you talk about a pregnant CEO who has said she will not take ANY maternity leave - and reject claims she is not using her hard-won maternity rights and that sets a bad precedent for other women because, for her, it's a 'personal choice'.

With all respect, is this about what you personally find palatable? From where I'm sitting, my stomach flipped over when I read that. I thought - great, so a high profile woman encourages the idea that working mothers should basically take a day off to give birth, then pop back in the next day, bushy tailed and bright eyed, ready for a good old long full time week at the office.

But then I'm someone who worked my arse off with a small baby, took 3 days maternity leave (could have taken less, but that darn hospital just didn't have any wifi!), and am now considering taking time away from my career because I am finding it damn hard, exhausting and it is killing the enjoyment and love I have for my vocation. Maybe I should keep working myself into the ground while wishing I could spend more time (time when I wasn't knackered and stressed about work) with my son. Better that than encourage those conservative thinkers to think bowing out of work for a while is all women want, eh?

You know what is making me angry and upset about this? I've always supported a woman's right to be wherever the hell she wants to be. I've always expected to earn and to have a career and a good one - to succeed and pay my way. I've taken flak for calling myself a feminist when it's been the least fashionable and most sneered at -ism in the room. I've relied on the support of other women, and given it myself, and now I'm feeling like the person no one wants to hear because I'm not saying the 'right thing'.

Noviceoftheday your post really struck a chord with me. I am anything but a high flyer but that has nothing to do with my gender. It bemuses me that people even ask these questions. Now that we have the right to share our 'maternity leave' with our spouses the last barrier to equality (other than the artificial womb - and who really wants that???) has been lifted. But the questions that 'feminists' ask constantly surprise me, because of course we have equality! (at least in the UK). I dont feel at any stage I have been discriminated against because of my gender. But I am quite assertive (I grew up with strong female role models!) and dont let anyone push me around. I am lucky to be at a stage of my career where I am good enough not to have to let people push me around but again that has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with experience. And I dont feel assertiveness is a masculine trait or that Im forced to act like a man to succeed - quite the opposite... I read some posts about equality for women and dont recognise the world they live in.

I think it is pressure on Marissa Mayer and it is a personal choice made under the patriarchy. If she had said she intended to take 6/12months maternity leave, she would not have got the job - simple as that.

So, we are back to the same old dichotomy - either you have the "top" job and outsource most/all parenting or you can't be a high flier.

Fruitybread I would say that some/many of viv's ideas are controversial and personally I find many of them quite surprising,

I think we need to stop debating "having it all" and stop using the expression completely because if it isn't applicable to men it isn't applicable to women either.

@BelleCurve - I don't agree actually as I think that these are specific circumstances. Yahoo is in a bad way. She is the 3rd CEO in a year and no, she wouldn't have got the job if she had said that she was going to take 12 months off on mat leave. Quite frankly, Yahoo can't afford to wait for anyone and that would include a man who accepted the job but wanted to take a year off on special leave. I don't think Marissa's circumstances are unique, because sometimes, no at the top, you can't take 12 months off, e.g. if you're self employed or work in a fast moving environment.

"Outsource most/all parenting". Sigh. Perhaps all children should be home schooled because if they go out to pre-school at 3 or school at 4/5 then the mother is outsourcing the parenting. Is the father outsourcing the parenting? Words fail me.

@Nigglenaggle while I haven't been discriminated against because that's open and obvoius, ime there is very subtle sexism at all levels that does undermine the progress of women in the workplace.

BelleCurve - completely agree. Novice - I'm sorry but I find what you say about the Yahoo CEO job very naive. Oh, the same would apply to a man in this position wanting to take a year off on 'special leave', would it? Cos that happens all the time, doesn't it. High flying men in top jobs wanting 12 months off for special leave. Yep. So it was a totally even handed situation.

let's be open about this. The ideal woman here seems to be someone in a top job who if she has children takes no maternity leave (let's assume she has an easy birth and recovers overnight), presumably feeding formula from birth as a choice enabling her to let someone else (partner or paid help) to look after her children for the vast majority of her life. So she doesn't miss a beat in career terms, and her job is utterly central, family life being subordinate to it.

from my POV - if that's what someone wants, then fine. On an individual level, more than fine, good luck to them. But all I see there is the total dominance of patriarchy, and a total lack of challenge to the 'work-life' structure that has been created by men. What the women who participate in that stucture with their total compliance in that culture need is a 'wife'. Or enough staff to fulfill the role of a 'wife'. I think it's so INCREDIBLY disappointing that that's the best we think there is.

Eeee, where to start with this. So many interesting posts.

For what it's worth, after having DS (my second child) and returning to work full-time, it hit me full on that the biggest lie I was ever sold was that women had equality. We have not; you just need to look at the gender pay gap, levels of discrimination in the workplace and the fact that so few women are in senior roles to see that, before you even get to the teensy everyday subtle niggly things you start to notice when they are directed at you.

But what I also realise is that equality on male terms is no equality at all. I don't want to have to work long hours, earn 100k+, miss out on my children growing up, to be a 'high-flyer' and to be considered a success. I want to be able to do the job I love, earn enough to support myself and my family AND have enough time with my children to not feel that I am doing them and myself a disservice by being too tired and stressed to enjoy the time I do spend with them. I don't want to buy into a male definition of success and perpetuate the long hours culture which doesn't recognise family commitments or allow flexible working. This means I have not been promoted as fast as male colleagues and DH, but on my deathbed, what is going to be more important? (And I have no problems with calling myself a feminist, btw - I don't believe that equality means accepting male terms of success)

I don't want to have to apologise for taking as much maternity leave as I could afford, not because I don't care about my job, but because it was the one opportunity I had to spend time with the DD I already have, with my new baby and just do the mum things. I would defend any other women's, and indeed, man's re paternity leave, right to do the same. It's not tacitly supporting a conservative agenda, it's recognising that being a productive member of society and the labour market does not and should not mean exhausting yourself and sacrificing time with your family, a point which should not be gendered but general.

Even according to standards suggested on this thread I ]was a high flier. I held my latest post between mid 2006 and end 2011 and earned well in excess of 100 k. High rewards from a very demanding job which I got young ( I was 32) but which was stressful and high risk. I took 3 months maternity leave on both occasions and worked during them.

Now Viv, the point is find me a Senior Counsel role (for women or men) at my level where you can take a "career break" ... "step back""??????

Nowhere.

And why? Because career breaks are not great at a senior level for companies who need their senior personnel present. Be they women or men.

The problem for women having children at a high level is you either have to outsource totally which means small people you love see nobody that loves them for whole weeks at a time; or you have a partner that can step in ( and I did not); or you bow out yourself for a while. I think the original Slaughter article you referred to was discussing how hard taking that decision is. And it is a crap decision to have to take when you've walked a long path already.

So you can't take a career break and nobody is interested in part time where are the options to stay economically active? Be a paralegal?! Too highly qualified! Who the hell would want me as their paralegal?!

The article spoke very personally about a particular role and having finished it I landed up not thinking the author made her points compellingly.

There really is no answer here where one size fits all. It comes down to personal situation. But in my profession unless there is more flexibility and more opportunity for part time work people like me with skill and training who have paid fortunes in tax WILL bow out if the system to do right by their children as they see it

fruity, well you can think it naive but those are the facts. My point was that Yahoo is in trouble and therefore needs someone there now. Man or woman, and I am jolly glad it's Marissa.

I am not sure what you mean by "ideal woman". Ideal for what? for whom?

Also, your coments about a woman in a top job just bear no resemblance to my experience or that of my circle. In my worklife, I earn well and am well known internationally in my field. In my family life I have two dcs under 3 - both were exclusively breastfed for a year. Being senior meant that I could flex my working hours, when I worked, where I worked and schedule meetings around my two expressing breaks when I was in the office. I don't feel the need to defend my lifestyle choice or prove that my kids are central to my day, but do think that when comments such as yours are made, it makes others think its not at all possible for women to have a "top job".

@fruitybread Viv is completely right. Those men who are so inclined (and it isn't all of them) are very keen to fasten on to any woman taking time out as evidence that 'women can't hack it' or, worse, as evidence that 'it's best for the children if mothers don't work'. They weave a narrative to fit their bias. Of course this doesn't mean that women shouldn't do whatever they want to do - work, not work, dance a fandango, whatever. But that doesn't mean they get to pretend there aren't consequences, for them, for other working women and for all our daughters. Because there are.

Metabilis3 :) Agreed.

@niggle I found your post interesting. I have definitely been discriminated against as a result of being a women. At many points during my career. Perhaps I'm just really old (I am pretty old ).

@summerflower You are perpetuating the narratives that seek to dissuade women from aspiring to anything other than mediocrity. I am not missing out on my children growing up. I work flexibly. I don't miss out on most family commitments (I do miss out on others but that's almost inevitable once you have school age kids if you have 3 or more with different enthusiasms). Sometimes I work long hours, other times, not. And while I'm not completely standard, for many reasons other than being female, as it happens, I'm also not completely bizarre for my profession, either.

Oh, please. what I say is making women think they can't have high flying top jobs? Which bit of what I say, exactly?

I actually meant 'ideal woman' for Viv and for others on this thread who seem to define a successful woman by how far she follows a traditionally male career path, right down to having other people pretty much look after their kids from birth. As I said in my post earlier - saying that women who 'bow out' of a career for some time to focus more on family life apparently plays into the hands of conservative thinkers who then think that's what ALL women want is A Bad Thing, according to Viv. But taking NO maternity leave in a top job is - well, that's just personal choice which won't have any effect on women in any other jobs. It won't make women who DO want maternity leave look as if they are asking for something unnecessary and grasping. Sure.

As a feminist, I am just so fucking disappointed that buying into the patriarchy and aping traditionally male behaviour is held up as the ideal career model. Like it or not, you will never see more women in higher status jobs at higher levels until the work culture changes. As a near top flier (I've only earned over 100k a year once but have been pretty close in other years), I too can work flexibly, as I'm self employed and work mainly from home. But I cannot change the sheer volume of hours I need to work to stay where I am professionally. They have to go somewhere. I have worked through nights with a breastfeeding baby waking every 45 minutes to be fed - and then through the days too, crying with exhaustion.

I don't want to be that person. My employers deserve someone who does a good job - my son deserves someone who isn't a sobbing wreck. I deserve to give myself a fucking break.

@fruity you keep making comments about people outsourcing childcare or having other people look after their children practically from birth. You are in fact very wrong. And you clearly lack imagination (and experience) if you think all successful women are merely 'aping' male behaviour.

metabilis - do you see that the behaviour of women who don't take time off at all when they have children - no maternity leave, straight back to work after birth - has consequences? For them, for other working women, for our daughters? They don't get to pretend this is a 'personal choice' with no consequences. No way. For me it is a damaging and retrograde step which puts a lot of women's employment rights in jeopardy - and is bit of comradely backstabbing at the same time.

'Oh, mr Employer, did x say she would like 3 months off when had a baby? And then she wanted some PART TIME work??? Some women, eh! Not like me. I'll be right back here whenever you want me.'

there's progress for you.

I don't lack imagination or experience because I don't agree with you, metabilis. What a strangely undermining thing to say.

Obviously being an intelligent woman, you will have noticed that nowhere have I said all successful woman are 'aping' male behaviour.

I do say it is a shame that a lot of people, male and female, can only seem to use the template of a traditionally male career, minimising the amount of time spent with children, as the definition of a successful career for women.