Parents can 'have it all'...

[ErrolTheDragon]

But some think it's more possible than others...
Link to Times piece on a survey/IWD day in next post

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/working-parents-can-have-it-all-and-rise-to-the-top-say-fathers-l2r2tt9s3?shareToken=6983035d04a2245833a42fe504c7391c

Depends on whether they mean both parents or one of the parents. If you're going to have a family someone needs to look after the children, doesn't have to be mum could be dad (my oh acted as main carer while I focused more on career). If you both want to focus on career then it sort of implies the kids are secondary. It could work if you earn enough to employ a nanny or have access to other child care solutions.

It was interesting to see that UK was least supportive of this view, perhaps because of the problems of child care. In the event of problems one or both need to be able to step in and look after your children.

If you see your career as your main goal don't have children. If you have children you need to accept that they're your resposibility and they take priority over your career.

Of course more fathers think it's possible - they're hardly ever the ones juggling everything.

In the Uk it looks like 50% of men and 40% of women which isn't that big a difference. It depends who they asked and how many. If the people who responded were high earners then I suspect they'd be more likely to agree than if they were people struggling to meet the mortgage/rent and feed the family.

It's possible to achieve a good balance if there are two parents who genuinely try to take an equal approach, i.e. both of them take a small step back from focusing on careers at least while the children are young, rather than one taking a large step back and the other carrying on almost completely unchanged.

But fathers are rarely asked to really step up to the plate and take responsibility for their children, i.e. taking half of the sick days, time off for dentist appointments, school events, inset days, leaving work on the dot to pick up children etc.

It starts with the leave after the baby's birth and it's a huge effort to get things on an even keel after you start off so unequal (which is unavoidable for obvious biological reasons).

Interesting (and dismaying) to see that there is still such a huge gap between mothers and fathers in Sweden, because I've had a great experience with that style of leave (fathers given 'use it or lose it' paternity leave) and always admired their system as even better because the total length of leave was much longer. I assumed that would address the issue of the mother obviously having much more need to take leave after the birth of a baby.

I think in the UK someone has to take a step backwards unless both parents are already on large salaries before having children and can afford lots of help, nannies, cleaners etc or have family help for childcare like grandparents. Even then someone needs to take care of all the child admin (the party invites,food deliveries, wages for staff, invoices for extra curricular activities, special school dress up/project days etc)

My sister became the high flyer and despite employing cleaners and au pairs her husband took the step "back" by taking a flexi time job so he could be with the DC more and take on the "life admin". Interestingly he complains about all the mental load stuff falling onto him and having to be the one to research and book holidays, keep the calendar up to date, remember birthdays, pay insurance, have clean uniforms, meal plan etc just as many mums do.

In my experience a family with kids really needs the equivalent of a part time person at home, if the kids are in school or full time care. Even when kids are older, in high school, someone usually needs some flexibility and kids benefit from having someone around.

There can be a variety of ways to achieve this including paid care and also families get by with less, but it can be less than ideal for both kids and parents. And of course the parents may have opinions about arrangements that are best for kids and not want all care to be paid care. Or kids with extra needs may be more demanding, even requiring full time permanent care in some cases.

So yeah - I think it's pretty obvious to me that all of this has a relation to what is possible in terms of career. Or to turn it around, what you can do in terms of how you want to parent may depend on whether you also have a carer or job. People who have very demanding jobs will have to somehow arrange childcare by hiring it, or having a spouse home more. Or if you want to be home with your kids a lot, you will not have the same career choices and options.

TBH I can never figure out why anyone ever thought otherwise.

Of course it is absolutely easier for a man to have it all. A man can defer having children for longer, focus on a career and is more willing to look for romantic partners with less earning power.

Not to mention the father doesn't carry or nurse the children all of which take time and energy. They might not be much of a barrier for a woman working in an office, but if you want to captain your own fishing boat, say, being pregnant or having an infant at the breast might prove completely incompatible for a woman.

But I would not say things like that are inequalities as such.

The crucial thing is available, affordable childcare. If you have that, then there are no constraints on your career.
I was widowed when both DC were still in nappies.
I “had it all”, I suppose - I had a career as a hospital doctor, raised the kids alone, and did all the cooking, cleaning, shopping, diy and gardening. In the days before the internet, when all shopping had to be done in person. But it was exhausting and very tough.