The OP's question is leading, immature and offensive.
Honestly, it shows such a lack of insight (whilst managing to appear so obviously the seed of a journalist looking for research avenues) that, if it wasn't for the blatant research angle, I'd think it was the sort of thing an A-level student might come up with.
Without wanting to some across as too sneery, I will comment on some of the specific points raised, even if it just prompts for some more mature thinking on the OP's part!
After watching Hilary Devay's documentary on woman in business
Hers is one voice. We all only have one voice. Her experiences cannot be treated as the truth, because it's only one person's viewpoint. If you ask a woman working in a woman-founded lawyer's office at the same time Hilary was trying to set up her business in a male-dominated industry, you're likely to get very different answers wrt women's experiences in business. Or ask a self-employer seamstress, or an actor on Broadway, or a woman serving a pub during that time.
Ask 5 people you'll get 5 answers.
I am interested in hearing about real women's experiences
As opposed to fake ones?
who both work and have children. Is this possible?
Yes, of course it is. Nip down to your local cinema, there's probably a woman working there. Or ring your local GP surgery, there will be a female doctor. Or the woman who consults to make your IT systems run faster, that'll be a woman.
Women working is nothing new.
The deeper, and more insightful questions focus on two areas:
-
Is this a new thing? Some would argue that women have always worked, it's just that women's contributions actually mean something now (as opposed to being low-level, menial, unpaid, unrecognised, e.g. caring roles).
-
Even when women are working, are they being held back? (What by? Attitudes? Self-sabotage, when they choose husbands who won't take emergency care leave if DCs are ill? Something else? A mix?)
Or have you found yourself in a position of having to choose.
Men have always had to choose.
Of board-level execs, there's statistics that will back this up, but essentially if you're a man you're more likely to have children than not, whilst if you're a woman it's the opposite.
Of the men who do have children, they usually miss school plays, first steps, and so on - men have never been able to have it all, and it was short-sighted for women to think they could. This doesn't make male breadwinner a bad parent, it's just that from a practical POV, it's impossible for a woman OR a man to be a highflying career person AND parent AND sibling AND best friend AND whatever else they want to be. It is possible sometimes with good timing, a fantastic support network, or exceptional stamina, but for most, it just isn't feasible.
Often, I dont think there is a choice because for whatever reason both parents have to work especially in today's economic climate.
Read up on how women were treated in the labour unions of the 1970s before you delve into that one. Or a number of other associated issues - such as the idea that women in the workplace were embraced by capitalism in order that the value of worker labour was effectively cut in half in the last 30 years (conspiracy theories, much!). I.e. in the 1970s, an able-bodied unskilled male breadwinner (e.g. warehouse staff or postal worker) could just (just) support a SAHW and two children, and at least afford food on the table with no government handouts. Try doing that today for a NMW job (and don't count your tax credits in there) on a single wage. Can't be done - not with today's house prices and inflation.
In short - I think you need to be asking some deeper questions than the OP is asking, unless it really is a paint by numbers A-level research task being undertaken.