Wise Ruby Wax - working and stay at home parents

[Judy1234]

In today's Telegraph....

"Dear Ruby

I stopped working when I had my third child. It didn't make sense to continue with my job when I had a stressed-out husband requiring my support and children who needed me at home. It was an agonising decision, but my salary only just covered the cost of childcare.

And we didn't need the money - my husband earns six times more than I did. More importantly, I felt really guilty going off to the office every day and leaving my kids behind.

My problem is this: since I stopped working I feel like a non-person. Oddly, it's other women who give me this feeling. Women who have somehow managed to keep their careers afloat through babies, breastfeeding, nappy rash and all the mayhem of motherhood, treat me with barely disguised contempt. It's almost as if, by staying at home, I've lost the right to have an opinion, or say anything interesting. It's deeply upsetting.

Life is hard enough as it is, so why can't women be allies at least? Why can't we respect each other's choices? Amanda M, Edinburgh

Dear Amanda

I have heard that cry from some of my "non-person" friends when they decided to give it all up for breastfeeding duty. The reason I would also probably treat you with disdain if I met you is that I am secretly (well, not so secretly any more) jealous.

You are lucky enough to have a husband who makes six times the amount you made and that really irks me, as I'm sure it would other females.

But in your position, I would have worked anyway, as all my self-esteem is stored up in my job. I could never have applied the word "housewife" to myself. I'd rather have put a sabre through my head.

Although I admire your sacrifice to the little one, on the whole, I find women who don't work to be just a teensy bit boring with their obsession with schools and stools. Not all, just most.

Perhaps other working mothers are reminded how guilty they feel about abandoning the home. Perhaps we take it out on you. Enjoy your home life."

Pippi - as far as they go, this was not a bad thread at all and I think it is not on to criticise a thread to which you have not contributed .

98% of the threads on Mumsnet don't interest me and on at least 50% I think the quality of the debate is of a very low level. But I refrain from going on those threads and saying "Gosh this is boring and clichéd" because, if I don't participate in the debate, that is none of my business .

anna you are absolutely right. it was a good thread il all and i should either partecipate or keep my opinion to myself.

It's just that I generally get annoyed at debates where there are unilateral views of one complex issue - 'we are better than you' type of thing - as in breast feeding vs bottle feeding for example. I think it's always a lot more complex than 'kids are going to be happier and emotionally stable if they stay with their mums' or 'if you are a non working woman you are boring and useless to society and exploited by your man and you'll suffocate your child' etc.
I think those unilateral view do not help women's situation, do not give them a real choice, make them take decisions that are not based on what they really want and do not help them realise what's best for themselves, their kids, their husbands and their family in general (like many have said in this thread). I do not think admitting that there are exceptions to such rules is enough as everyone and every family is an exception and should be seen as such and not put on a box.
My opinion is that extreme and rigid stands such as those (which might sound unreal but admittedly some posters do embrace them) make look women a lot more stupid and petty.

That is what annoys me, not the thread, not most of the arguments in it. It annoys me to see that women have to be judged as clever or dopey, interesting or boring only depending on whether they are SAHM or not. surely we should all know that there is more to a person than this.

weeey, that was long. sorry! I got carried away and my lunch is getting cold.
I am going to leave this alone now anyway. it's not good to get so upset in my pg state (anger explained)

I don't think that there are no right or wrongs though. I just do not think that are universal and applicable to everyone in the same way. Even for myself, what was good for me, my daughter and my family when she came along is not going to be right for this second one. because circumstances have changed, I have changed etc. In terms of children's wellbeing too many factors play a part that except for physical and psychological violence it is debatable IMO what's good and what's not.
with dd1 I had to go back to work. there was no other way. I would have gone into serious PND if I didn't. It was hard for me to axcept this new existence etc. I went part time, which was great as I was able to have what I called then 'a life' and give her plenty of attention and time when I was with her. she was happy at childcare. you could say she would have been happier with her mum. maybe, but ot if her mum was depressed and not really there. now things ahve changed and I am much happier to severe that link with work (for a while) and I feel safe in my being a mother (because I no longer believe that it limitates me and not having a profession does not make me feel incomplete). I still will need to put my children in childcare for at least 2 days a week bacause I'd go mad if I do not have time and space for myself (luckily I am able to do that). All the above choices are good for me but could be someone elses nightmare (like the woman who will never ever leave her children with a babysitter) and would be well criticised by others. but do make my children be better than hers? are they happier or sad? was I happier because my mum was home (and my dad too)? I have no idea.
all I know is if I were forced to stay at home then I'd have gone to pieces, if I were forced to go to work now everything will collapse.
some women do not have choice and have to work when it's not suitable for them and have to stay home do things they despise.

choice and the tools to understand what is good and needed in your family is what women need not hard rules.

Pippi - I know what you are getting at - you are saying that there were multiple variables in your decision to carry on working part-time when your DC was born, with the overriding variable that you would have gone bonkers being in the house all day with a baby.

We all have multiple variables in our lives, but the point is that we aren't always able to identify them but would like to, which is why these conversations seemingly go on forever and in circles.

And by endlessly discussing these issues and turning them around, we can, hopefully, have a full and complete understanding of our own variables, freed of our neuroses/societal conditioning etc.

I think the point about multiple variables is a good one. One of the things I find interesting about these threads the different variables people consider - and those they assume are a given. This helps me think through those factors I assume are fixed and have to be worked round rather than questioned.

For example in many couples this whole issue is a decision/dilemma for the woman - the man's full time working hours are taken as a given. In other couples a certain standard of living is taken as essential rather than discussed. For me thinking about what other people don't consider/discuss when making their choices makes me think about the things I might not be considering when making mine, if that makes any sense.

It is because of these multiple variables that I think judging anyone else's decision is usually unwise - we often don't fully recognise the factors that make up our own decision making processes - how can we know what complex and difficult issues other people are having to weigh up?

And although I personally agree with Anna in that I prefer to be fully aware of what I am sacrificing rather than trying to pretend that my choices are always perfect for everyone I think that this can be very hard to ask of people who have had to make harder choices than I have had to make.

You get to see other view points which is always a good thing. We discussed before we married who would look after the babies if the nanny etc didn't work out and my ex husband said he would be the person doing that (because he earns less). Obviously that makes sense. Even if I hadn't earned more I am not sure I would have stayed home. I would have ensured the childcare worked but I always knew how interested I was in my career so my variables are different from other people's.

That doesn't mean there aren't any objective rights and wrongs however.

So, Xenia, two of your (conveniently non-conflictual) critical variables in your decision to carry on working when you had children were (1) that your husband earned less than you, and insufficient money to keep his family in the manner you wished to live and (2) that you were extremely career-focused.

Indeed, lots and lots of women don't share those variables . It doesn't make them stupid or less women . Just in different circumstances.

So, Xenia, two of your (conveniently non-conflictual) critical variables in your decision to carry on working when you had children were (1) that your husband earned less than you, and insufficient money to keep his family in the manner you wished to live and (2) that you were extremely career-focused.

Indeed, lots and lots of women don't share those variables . It doesn't make them stupid or lesser women . Just in different circumstances.

Anna888 "non-conflictual" what language is this? Non-conflicting, surely?

So having read all these posts, accepted that there are multiple variables and that everybody is different. Having accepted that we are all trying to find our way and we may not even know what all the variables are until we are in the thick of things. Having accepted that times change and that DH/DP have a say in this and that they are as much responsible for the childcare as we are.

So who would do anything differently if they had their time again?

Does reading these posts change anything or does it just make us more forgiving of the choices of others?

Yes, of course I would do things differently if I had my time again - the benefit of hindsight always sheds light on one's life choices.

I wouldn't have been so naïve about the difficulties of combining a very demanding job with lots of international travel with any kind of personal life (not just children ). I wouldn't have been so naïve about the necessity of support systems, and how their availability can absolutely make or break your life.

I would always have wanted to be at home during my children's pre school years. I've had too many old women say to me "you never get those years back" and I think I would always have had regrets otherwise (not to say I won't have regrets when I get to pension age though!). Also I do feel it has been best for my children in our particular circumstances. Other families, other circumstances going back to work would have been better.

My biggest regret is choosing law instead of teaching as my pre family career. I feel now that, unless you are super successful such as Xenia, private law is possibly one of the worst careers to combine with children; long hours, pressure, difficulty of keeping up with skills after a career break. Whereas you will never be a millionaire with teaching but at least you have the holidays, pension, greater continuity of skills etc. However it's all hindsight of course. When I was a teenager I went to visit some neighbours who were both lawyers with a young family and the woman emphatically said "don't do it, it's really difficult with children" and of course I ignored her.

LOL evelina.

I was at an MBA reunion a few years back and some of the older women (so real pioneers in their time) were unanimous in their agreement that they would never advise their own daughters to go down the MBA route - embarking on that kind of international career was just madness if you want a family.

Interestingly enough, I do think that that has evolved somewhat and I see a lot of my MBA classmates having quite interesting "portfolio" careers - not what they had in mind when they embarked on their MBA (and not what you want to tell the admissions board is your objective), but not a bad option either, if you want to have children and a decent family life.

Interesting - with regard to the children I wouldn't change anything I don't think. We have moved house twice since DS1 was born 7.4 years ago so a career would have been disrupted by that. I hadn't thought of going back further than that and the implications of my career choice on how I have dealt with my children.

I did a degree in law and economics as I had a mind to become a solicitor but somewhere down the line, due to holiday work experience, I changed to accountancy and that was a huge mistake. I wish I had done law - family or criminal rather than commercial (too much overlap with accountancy so it wouldn't have interested me). I never qualified as an accountant as I really didn't like it and only now am I working on retraining but I wonder if I would have made a different choices if I had a career I loved. I suspect not as I really do believe that children do better, on the whole, at home with their parents than they do in child care. Exceptions to every rule of course but generally that is what I believe.

I have a friend who was a city lawyer. Probably not as successful as Xenia but she is probably 10 years younger so she might have got there. When she had her first child 5 years ago she gave it up to work at the College of Law and work part time. A good compromise for her I think - you get the holidays and still get to do the legal stuff.

Niecie - quite a few of my female MBA classmates were lawyers wanting out of law... and quite a few of my female MBA classmates have since retrained as lawyers to get out of business .

The grass is always greener, huh? I think lots of women are looking for that very elusive interesting, well-paid career that magically combines easily with motherhood...

Did you ever feel you got the benefit from your MBA Anna? My DH has one and I don't think he gets a lot of use out of. He has gone down the portfolio career path in a way - I don't think it is necessarily restricted to women. He became a contractor for a while - more money than a full-time job, much less travel and more scope to spend time with the children. Now he is starting his own accountancy practice and doing well, although early days yet. He's not rivalling the Big Six but even Mr Price, Mr Waterhouse and Mr Cooper had to start somewhere.

The advantage of it is that he is now his own boss and can spend time with the children if needs be or if he wants to. Maybe the MBA widened his outlook and gave him the confidence to go down this route.

Niecie - yes, my MBA has given me lots of things in life that I wouldn't have had without it.

I was very lucky in that I didn't pay for it myself (my previous employer did) - so it was cost neutral for me. I also did a really good MBA (Insead), which does open a huge number of doors, gives a huge worldwide network and commands a lot of respect in the working world. And I did a job after my MBA that I would not have got before it, and that job and the experience it gave me really has been invaluable.

Personally I think you had a lucky escape from law Niecie, but then it never really suited me and some women do indeed enjoy it.
I do finds these posts interesting. It seems such a pity that in this day and age, with both men and women and society in general needing and wanting children, that some solution hasn't come up to solve the old "going back to work" problem. Girls do better than boys throughout the school system and then outnumber men in undergraduate professional degrees (even getting more firsts now I think) and then, lo and behold, as soon as you reach partnership/consultant stage whether in law, accountancy, medicine whatever it's the same old story- women falling behind in their droves because career success and the biological clock happen at the same time.
I disagree with Xenia's solution to this because I think encouraging all women to go back to work when their children are very small is ignoring hormones and nature which will never work. For me, it has to be government compulsion. Force employers to employ women on the same terms when they have children whilst allowing them to do the school run (and of course men and women to both be involved). I'm sure it would be difficult at first but in the long run surely it would pay for itself through our taxes? I don't want to be off work for twenty years but I do want to be able to collect my children from school, help them with their homework, maybe a few after school clubs...

evelina - do you really think that it is possible to force employers to employ mothers in competitive jobs whose commitment and availability is less great than that of other employees and to give them equal treatment?

In my old firm (and I am talking 10 years ago now), there was a real, firm-led commitment to offering part-time work to mothers (or any other employee if they so wished) at equal pay/status/promotion prospects as full-time workers. It failed.

The same firm has now adopted a policy of 40% female partners by 200X (I can't remember exactly which year), not through part-time work but by offering workers assistance with childcare. We'll see.

That is the route to go. The City firms in London that have concierge services and back up nannies when yours doesn't turn up which men and women can use, with long periods off on full pay, they get to keep staff they want so that can work. In some career structures with less room at the top it's hugely convenient clever good women leave to make babies and iron shirts for 20 years because you have their good services up to age 32 or whatever and then just when there'd be a partner log jam they conveniently disappear into their husband's kitchen. Win win all round if the firms and women like that.

Why anyone would want to do school runs defies belief to me. Occasionally I have enjoyed it but I would be on year 24 of school runs by now and I bet it would have paled after 2 or 3 months. Do they year for the traffic and the queuing and the child who is tired after school nagging them and the requirement to get the homework done and children's tea cooked? Where is the pleasure in that? Much more fun to work enjoy your work get pay and status and happiness in that and come home ideally before bed time to an hour or two of washed fed children in a happy home.

Xenia - even better - school buses .

My sister has a wonderful mini-bus service that picks up her three at her front door every morning at 8 am and delivers them back at 4 pm. Same lovely bus driver who sees the children are belted in. Even a three year old can take the bus to school.

I think if you had all the flexibility in the world it wouldn't make that much difference precisely because of the hormones and nature, as Evelina say. The opportunities of women and men are the same at the beginning, straight out of university, but you can't fight nature - women have babies and some of them will find the focus of their lives will change as a result. The only way you will have true equality of opportunity in careers is if men have babies too and that isn't going to happen any time soon!

Niecie - I agree, and I have said as much to the friend (also senior director of firm) who told me about the new 40% women partners policy.

And, because he is a very good friend of my partner (and also a former colleague of both of ours) and we go on holiday together etc, he has also confided that he actually prefers the office to be a mainly male environment. He has enough women at home .

So what do we do with that kind of insider information?

Do what I do Xenia, live next to the school, no car, no traffic, no time for bickering, no problem.

So are you saying that you wouldn't change anything?

It is very impertinent of me and feel free to ignore me, but did you plan to have the twins when you did? It seems to me that you must have had them at a time when you career was really taking off. Did you not have children young so that they would be becoming independent at precisely the time your career should be moving up a gear? Or did biology get the better of you and you just decided you wanted more children? It is just that you have not necessarily taken the easiest path for somebody who is obviously so dedicated to their career.