Any city lawyers trying to have it all?!

[CoffeeAndCarrotCake]

Is it even possible? I've been back for a month, and the first couple of weeks were fine as it was all a bit of a novelty. Now though, I just miss DD so much and am hating the fact that she's going to be so much closer to my DH, MIL, nursery carers, au pair...(bloke in the corner shop, chap who delivers the curry, window cleaner....) than she will be to me. She might forget me altogether!!

Have any of you been back for a little longer and found it's not so bad, or planning to pack it in altogether?!

It is interesting that there are a lot of lawyers on MN. I wonder how many became lawyers in part because, like me, they thought (aged 18) that it was a career that could not be taken away from them when they had children; that they'd always have the qualification to rely on. I'm a barrister, but employed at the moment. I'm going back to private practice and hoping that it will be flexible enough to let me pick the kids up from school at least once in a while! The reality might be different. Interesting how young women make career choices based on a future of motherhood that may or may not happen.

musicalamy you are most certainly NOT being selfish to work full-time. Has anyone said that to your DH about his choice?

I found it astonishing when I first went back to work how many people came out with this kind of criticism. It's as though having a baby licenses people to judge you with 1950's values. If it's any consolation, a colleague at my work who I only vaguely know, who is pregnant with her first, came to chat to me the other day about how my pregnancy is going. Very nice of her - until she said, "this is your first, right?" Of course I put her straight (as I said we don't know one another very well) and said I have a three-year-old DD already. Her response?

"But you work full-time! " (with a very concerned and confused face).

Sigh. I think you just have to be 100% confident in and happy with your choices and let people's comments start to wash over you. Remember - it's about THEM, not YOU!

I am a senior in-house lawyer in the city and scheduled to return to full time work in 5 weeks time. Absolutely terrified at the thought of leaving DS, who will be 7.5 months, but this thread has helped address some of my concerns. I do wish I could go back part time but not an option financially nor could this be accomodated within my team at this time. Also wish I could push back until he is 9 months or a year but again, this isn't possible as we need my salary.
I do also want to work for me - wouldn't be happy being a SAHM. Have promised myself that I will see how it goes for the first 3 months then reassess if necessary. As others have said, I think the right childcare is crucial.

Gangle - 3 months (or 100 days) is a good period to assess how you feel. All I would say is that after 5 years every time I come back from holiday, I would still rather be with the DCs than with my files. Just bear that in mind over Christmas!

But, if your working a 9 to 5, 40 hour plus including travel time week at work and you have young children, pre-school children - How do you know your kids? Of course there will be a bond and motherly love and all of that, that goes without saying, but I just don't understand how you can really know them. If your working a 9 to 5 then your out of the house by 8 and not back till after 6. Your lucky if your seeing kids for hour in morning and hour or two at night and both of those hours are going to be busy and probably stressed to some degree.

I am amazed by women with children who manage full time successful careers. I just wonder whether they are aware how little they actually know their own children.

If you were applying the same time and attention to your office and job how could that possibly be sustainable.

I absolutely understand why women want to return to work but I think if your partner is also working full time or if you are a single mum then the honest conclusion has to be that your children and family are the ones who come up short (not materially of course).

notimeparttime - "I just wonder whether they are aware how little they actually know their own children."

do you have any idea how insulting this is?

I thought you might find it insulting and I'm genuinely sorry if you find it insulting. But, I just can't work out how you can possibly know your children if you hardly ever see them.

I can understand if your working shifts but if your working 9 til 5 with around an hour travel there and back I just cannot see that you spend any time with your kids other than the weekend and holidays. And at the weekend, well there are lots of things to fit in there isn't there, extended family visits, friends, husband and wifey things and all of the activities.

It would seem to me an impossibility.

Okay - let me add a perspective. I work f-t in a very demanding career in IT. I have been promoted three times in three years and to be quite honest this is an outstanding achievement.

The other side of the story is that my dh is chronically ill. He can't work. So the money that comes into our house comes from me. He is a SAHD and ds (3) goes to nursery in the mornings.

My mum is a fantastic role model, she is a fantastic granny, my MIL rocks as a grandma, they tick every box. My mum was always a SAHM even in the bleak days in the seventies when she left my dad and there was virtually no provision for single parents. My MIL continues to work nearly full-time as a music teacher, neither of them have had anything like the career that I am having.

But. They both know it is a compromise for me, in an ideal world I would not be out of the house for as many hours as I am. But I am. I choose to work in an industry that pays less but is more child-friendly. That's the only compromise I can make. I can't work part-time, it's all down to me. And in any case, we're both used to Swedish business practice, where both partners are equally involved and so you just don't book a meeting that starts after 3:30, cos everyone leaves at 4:30 to do the school run.

It is hard. But no-one is closer to ds than me. It's hard for DH because ds wants me in the afternoon and I'm not here. That kills me, but I have to do it. The great thing he gets is to know that dads can stay at home and mums can go out to work - and indeed vice versa. But this is all that I can do. Whatever 'criticism' this attracts - this is all that I can do.

Come on, of course you know your children (never kids, ugh.. kids are baby goats, I have real live lovely babies, five of them...) And I have the perspective on this - I went back to work when all were babies. Two are law students, another at university stage so I can see the end product. You don't look at those older 3 and say - emotionally damaged, no mother love, mother returns to work then they were babies, hurt for life. You see well adjusted nice children in a loving family who have benefited massively in all kinds of ways from my career, not just financially but in terms of their own development, ability to deal with other people, nannies, cleaners, friends, huge independence, lovely role model of mother who loves her job and earns quite a lot which I think is having quite an impact on them now at this student phase and they are old enough now of course to talk about it all.

Some housewives are useless mothers and some working mothers are. You just can't generalise. Babies need consistent loving care, habits, routines, certainties and most working parents of either gender ensure they have that.

Love isn't something we ration out. I often say when they ask I don't love any of the 5 of you more than the others. Love is infinite. I can love them all. Just as they can be attached to their parents and their nanny - the first day nanny stayed for 10 years, longer than many men stick around.

I never get this thing about mothers who want to be number 1 thing in a child's life. It's selfish and also arrogant - why are you the best? Isn't it lovely to see them getting on with nanny or their first primary school teacher or in our case the much older siblings? Why are you jealous? They have infinite amounts of love to give.

In an ideal world I would work the hours I do. I like the work. i don't want to spend more than a few hours a day with chidlren. I've really enjoyed having them over nearly 25 years now, a massive part of my life on a daily basis. In 25 years I will have spent more time with the chidlren than a full time mother of one fits into 5 pre school years. But it's not a job and most peoople dont' want just to do that - boring child care for no pay day in day out. It's low grade domestic work and everyone in all cultures who can afford it has help with it, always have back to medieval times and earlier. It's how women are except in sexist cultures where mytsh are perpetuated often by other women that mothers must be with babies 24/7 including in bed otherwise the child wil suffer.

To be clear, I'm not for a minute saying women who work full time don't have a great mother child bond and that their children don't go on to be great people or average people or messed up people anymore than kids (my children aren't baby goats either but they are kids) who are looked after by mums who stay at home.

And I'm agreeing that your child will want to be with you more than anyone else in the world, thats the gift of being someones mum.

All I'm wondering is whether you would concede, as a full time working mum with a career which takes precedence over spending time with your kids - would you concede you don't know your kids well.

For example, my husband works those kinds of hours and he doesn't know the kids as well as I do simply as a matter of fact.

And I have watched other mums (very close friends and family) who have worked full time while their kids are essentially brought up and nurtured by carers or family and when the children turn into teenagers I've sensed that their mothers don't seem to know them. They still have a relationship and it can be a decent one like having a good friend but its missing a certain closeness and I just wonder if its because they just don't know each other as well as they might.

A bit like my relationship with my dad. I love him and I have an excellent relationship with him, but he doesn't really know me, not like my mum. I mean the essence of me, I'd say its only my mum that does know that and its just a matter of her having been there every step of the way, a bit like her reward for time served or something.

And having kids now I'd say I'm the only one that knows the essence of my kids, and I think that is a gift. And I wonder whether you give away a subtle precious gift when you return to full time work throughout your childrens formative years.

But, I would agree, there is a lot to be said for the control and certainty of the workplace and the respect and the better holidays/car/house/furnishings/wardrobe/hairdos and the confidence which comes from being successful in your career but for me it doesn't come close and I'm pretty sure I could get some career satisfaction having put it on hold till they are all at school at least.

And anyway, I'm just wondering. I find there is a lot of dishonesty among full time working mums. I think there is a choice to be made and you make it. If you put career satisfaction or material gain first then fine but you must then surely concede your children come second.

and I meant to add that to call taking care of your own children "low grade domestic work" speaks volumes re your capacity for love and your opinion of your children not to mention your nanny or childminder. And of course it answers my question regarding whether you have any awareness re what you are missing out on.

I don't agree. Firstly, all time isn't quality time. I may not be with my children all day every day but the time I spend with them is precious and I prioritise them absolutely. I know when I was on mat leave and had both at home, it is easy to stick them in front of the tv, do your own thing and pat yourself on the back at the end of the day for spending the whole day with them. I think that's rubbish, they learn more at university.

Second, with DD I worked full time. But as with lots of lawyers, I start at 9.30ish and was at home with DD from 7 until about 8.30 in the mornings. Then I left on time, and had an hour and a half with her before bedtime. I started working again once she went to bed and whether I suffered from this is a different question, but my DD has never suffered and we have an amazing relationship. I hope I can do the same with DS.

I work for my own sanity, for financial necessity and to give my children a good quality of life (holidays, days out, swimming lessons, ballet...), not in that order. Its right for our family and I do not think in any way I am putting them second. I find that quite insulting.

notimeparttime, I am a SAHM and yet I find your comments quite insulting. When I worked full time I spent the majority of my time with my boss and yet I would say that he hardly knew me. It is not about the amount of time you spend with someone. It is about the amount of time that you actually engage with someone, completely different imo.

Completely agree fo.

I am not saying that its a better or worse decision. I am just putting it to you all that a decision is made as to whether your children take priority in terms of your time and energy or your career takes priority. Surely you can get off your high career horses and accept that time wise your children come second to your office jobs.

oh ForeverOptimistic you are missing the point. Of course your boss is hardly going to know you its a professional relationship FFS.

Sorry, what rubbish.

I actually think notparttime's post of 22.40 was very well put (and sensitively put, too) and , to be honest, true.

And fwiw, I am not one to come down on either 'side' of the (completely false & silly) 'WOHM vs SAHM debate', having done both in my time.

"I find there is a lot of dishonesty among full time working mums. I think there is a choice to be made and you make it. If you put career satisfaction or material gain first then fine but you must then surely concede your children come second."

I find that upseting, especially when it may not be a choice.

But when notparttime is talking about a career realising "better holidays/car/house/furnishings/wardrobe/hairdos" and talking about a decision or a choice, that's overlooking the very obvious point that a lot of women are the sole or main source of their family's income. So full-time work is not a choice, and more about putting food on the table and paying the bills than funding highlights or a skiing trip. As surely a lot of the earlier posts on the thread made clear.

It's an interesting question - the extent to which families "need" money. For instance if I don't work we would not be able to pay school fees. Yet to what extent is that a need? Faced with the downturn, I think well what happens if I don't work? And I've never thought about that seriously before now and you know what? We would survive ...

If I don't work, we would have no income at all. And for a lot of women, its that simple. Its not about a better house, its about a house at all. And we are all doing the best we can, but how can it be helpful when you are in the position of sole or main breadwinner for another woman to point out that by working you may not know your child or children and that that is a choice that you've made?

"knowing" your children.
Well. What does that mean? Remembering who their current best friend is? Having a clue as to whether they like courgettes, and/or have done their history homework? Having private jokes, & a fund of tribal family anecdotes to lighten life when it gets tricky? Knowing exactly what they would like for Christmas/birthdays, so that when it appears they cannot believe the present is so perfect? Having a barometer of exactly what is bothering them (or making them happy) from one day to the next? Their being confident that you will listen to them when they need to talk to you? Hearing your own voice (and words) echoed back in how your child speaks?

As a full-time working mum, the only one I don't have is the last of the above ... and, you know, I love the fact that I don't hear echoes of myself in them. They aren't just replicas of me. They're their own, individual, interesting little people, influenced by a nice variety of rather fabulous people. And not, as I was, a child whose outlook on a thing was totally bounded by whether my mum approved of it or not. Because that was my only yardstick.

Anyway [bleeding obvious statement], whether or not you "know" your children is totally a function of whether or not you want to. It's not controlled by time spent, but by interest expended.

But for a lot of women it is a choice. Especially in the city or in other areas where women have jobs with status and good salaries. Nothing to be ashamed of.

I returned to full time work because I enjoyed my job and didn't like the idea of being at home all day, in a domestic world that felt totally foreign to me. Turns out, though, that eventually, I couldn't square it with myself and -although I would never dream of making any moral judgement on the matter with regards to what other families do - I couldn't bear being away from my young child from 7.45am-6.30pm every day. All the money and status in the world couldn't have made me stay in that job.

I agree, it isn't helpful to constantly point out the imperfections in other peoples situations (perhaps Xenia would like to take note? She is constantly harping on about how SAHMs are bad role models who damage their children by not working ). On the other hand, no situation is perfect. Working mums who work long hours away from their children do miss out on a lot of their children's childhoods. And SAHMs miss out on career opportunities, money, status in society - sometimes in the long term, too.

I have long thought the answer lies in more family friendly government and employment policy, sot hat there isn't this awful onus on women to make 'choices' and 'sacrifices'. Children are part of our lives. Working is part of most of our lives at some point (very few women are full time SAHMs forever and ever!). Why doe sit always have to be a source of guilt and or / something to snipe at each other about?