Hi everyone

Recently I read this article on the BBC news website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8358991.stm
which reports on how..

"Encouraging girls to "have it all" is not realistic and they need to know their lives will be more complicated than that, a leading head teacher says."

I was intrigued by it and wondered whether boys (in boys schools) are told/should be told the same for the sake of equality

,-)

To me this whole article, whilst rightly raising the dilemmas many women in society face, was like a slap in the face for anyone who would want women to aspire to the become good/the best in their field.

Is it just me who found this article "odd"? Anyone?

Hi there,

Interesting, I didn't find it odd actually. I was raised by a dad and a family which set/still sets its standards of 'success' and 'achievement' all in the realm of the professional success. I was told (brainwashed) from the age of 2 to aspire first for topping the class, then for topping whatever co curriculars I did, from singign to dancing to debate, then to be prefect, then head girl, then the best uni, best uni in the world and even now I hear these things. A cousin of mine, who was an excellent student right till her PhD, chose to go for a lesser job to let her husband lead his work life the way he wished and she wanted to give herself completely tp her baby son. Now, everyone in my family considers this a 'lesser' choice and said 'she really wasted her talents etc'. Feminists in my family rave and rant about how her choice was a conditioned one, i.e not her own choice really etc...

Now, that I find robbing women of their agency. I think what the head teacher wants to say here is that it's Ok to make apparently lesser choices. In saying that I think she is also rescuing a lot of the stuff women do (like housework, raising kids) out of the dumps.

I dont know, I was a student of a feminist who was against censorship, pro porn and pro all kinds of things that would shock many feminists.

I should also add I am an unschooled feminist. My mum belongs to the old school of feminists with smatterings of classism, and even sexism mixed in it in some way..(she'd kill me if she read this)

On your other point, if boys should be taught the same, yes of course, absolutely. I only hope the headteacher of a boys school does that.

interesting - my parents told me just do as well as I can, as long as I have tried my best then so what? And they also very much advocate happiness over financial gain. My dad gave up his job in the city in the 70s and became a craftsman and he's very successful, although not very well off, but very happy!

I do agree that women can't really have it all, until things like paternity leave and proper flexible working are things that aren't considered lazy options. And people who work flexibly aren't considered second class citizens because they are not in the office all hours.

We have an odd culture where parenting doesn't seem to be a valued profession and if people are to be successful in that, then they need to be supported in their work environment too.

======= Date Modified 16 Nov 2009 15:44:02 =======
I certainly didn't find it odd. I was the daughter of a 'have it all' type mother. Unfortunately my mum was a woman in her 30s in the 80s where things had changed and she had the double whammy of having been brought up to keep a perfect house, but she felt the need to juggle that with a high flying career. I so clearly remember her tiredness and her stress. I also remember it culminating in her being found with the hosepipe attached to tje exhaust.... She was ok, (although my guilt at maybe having driven her to it by not helping out enough, or being naughty or whatever still affects me) she was forced out of work by her doctor for 3 months on the grounds that her (few) varicous veins needed sorting NOW, and then she went back. When she hit 50 she was laid off. All I wanted was a mum who was at home when I got back from school, a mum who'd nurse me when I was sick rather than having to leave me with the phone... but try not to call darling. I guess in a way it put me off the 'have it all' school of thought big time and I grew up resenting the feminists and equal opportunities brigade who I felt had robbed me of my childhood and a happy mum.



As a mum myself I still feel that we simply can't have it all and keep our sanity. How can I possibly give 100% to my kids and to my work? I can't. Of course I still have to juggle with my studying and my kids, but while they are young this suits me far better than a career. I see friends who have children and who are working breaking their hearts leaving their children in child care. They put a brave face on it but it slips sometimes and they will admit they'd give anything to work p/t or not at all and not to miss so much of their family growing.



I know that this will enrage the feminists - sorry about that - but I think that the drive for equality has destroyed the lives of countless women and that girls should be taught that its ok to not 'have it all'. That its actually ok to be a wife and mum if that's what they chose, or to be a working woman with a high flying career. Combine the two and you simply cannot have enough hours in the day or enough energy and something will give eventually.

Cannot resist writing in a bit more on my (rather limited) understanding of the feminist agenda.


i think, and I am geenralising, one wave of feminism (when the suffrage things were on) were asking for equal rights. that wave still ignored other differentials (race, class, sexuality etc). Later feminists tooks these up and then in some way perhaps high culture was privileged.

Then, the British feminists from the Birminhgam Centre did a huge lot (read Angela McRobbie here I think...) in rescuing this feminism that workled from a moral high ground. To what end? Yes, there's something called agency, choice, etc. if a houseiwve watches a soap opera and finds it pleasurable, so be it, that's fine.

Look at this instance: Tania Modleski (one wave of feminist) found soaps to be anti feminist derogatory. Ien Ang, Janice Radway etc (her contemporaries) said there was resistance readings etc of the genre and one could make it all too simplistic.

I think, we have now (successfully) reached a stage where we can say

(1) the equal things as men agenda is flawed because it stills sets men as the norm and the standard
(2) that enjoying pop culture, porn, etc is not a simplistic case of women being gullible and accepting stereptypical messages
(3) 'Feminine' and 'soft' stuff, inside the walls of the home are as much public, as a debate in the city centre.

Sorry this is all very media studies informed, and I dont do gender, but that;s what I thought from this piece and of course the insights from Stressed/Sneaks below completely inspired me :-)

Hi all

This is an interesting thread and one close to my heart, as I studied women's studies for many, many years and have worked in women's policy for the last 15 years. I'm really pushed for time and can't do an indepth response, but wanted to make a few points.

I also don't think article is odd. There has been a wave of women coming out in the past few years blaming feminism for them being told they can 'have it all' and then they've found they can't, that it's too hard trying to balance kids and a career. Or they've not been able to get pregnant as their fertility has declined while they were out building a career - as if a movement which seeks to expand women's choices is at fault because these women have not been aware that fertility declines in your thirties...So, yes, there are women saying that you can't have it all. And no, men don't get told this.

And Stressed, this is the same underpinning as your argument, blaming feminism for your mum not being available to you, and setting women up as superwomen. The thing that these arguments fail to take into account is that feminism is about expanding choices, so women can stay at home or work, but not about making women's lives harder. And the dichotomy between stay at home mums/working women is false anyway, as most women will do both throughout their lives. So while women now do have lots of choices, the underlying system has been slow to change and women have had to try and work within this. And society is very resistant to change and relies on women's unpaid labour, and for women to do all the menial work, so why should it accommodate women's increased aspirations? If, as others have mentioned, we had truly flexible working hours and gender equality in the workplace, with men also willing to work part-time and take time off to look after the kids etc, this would go some way to ensuring that women didn't have to do it all. This is just a start of course. The comment in the article that women 'might want to take a lesser job because their priorities had changed' is outrageous - the solution is not for women to accept lesser jobs - and women's skills are already undervalued in society - but for the quality of part-time jobs to improve, for higher status jobs to be able to be done part-time, for working arrangements to change to accommodate people's lives and for men to also consider working part-time.

Enough from me. I could go on forever about these issues, but don't have time...

I agree with Jill Berry, I think it is important to point out that you cant have it all, you need to make compromises, be flexible, sometimes completely change route, and as Jill Berry put it, not to beat yourself up about it.  Yes, aim high, but be realistic. Perhaps you may not want children, and in that case it would be easier to rise to the top.  Maybe you want to stay at home and raise a family, or do both. Personally, I find if difficult to try and do everything, I'm trying to do my phd, I work 1-2 days a week, lecturing, I have 3 children, my husband works many hours so its down to me to sort everything out.  As a mother you are often made to feel guilty by society, guilty if you put your children in a nursery school all week and work, or guilty if you are a stay at home mum and dont go out to work. Although I am a mother and a wife, I also have my needs, and I would not be happy filling all my time looking after children and cleaning the house etc; but I would also not be happy if I felt my children were suffering as I was pursuing my career and fulfilling my potential - it does sadden me when I read from stressed's post, being left with the telephone and just wanting a mum that was there.  So I put my children first, I'm there to take them to school, pick them up, take them to their various activities, and there if their ill at home, do their homework with them etc; then when the children are at school I do my stuff, but its my stuff that suffers, not my children, I'm not too happy with the progress I'm making with my phd, which was really starting to get to me, but to put things into perspective, my children are happy and healthy, my husband and I have our health (and still solid), goodness what more could you want!!!! I have friends from both ends of the spectrum, stay at home housewives, and accomplished professionals, and bear witness to traumas (unfortunately) with children from the mums that arent there very often.  Its tough, and I dont want to make judgements as I can appreciate all angles, but I think its important to do what works for your family, whatever that is and not feel pressured. I think its tough for women that stay at home to look after the children, as society tends to view this as menial stuff, on bank accounts you have to be logged as unemployed, and put up with the comments 'oh you dont do anything then'. Sorry, this is an emotive subject, I have been rambling.....

Hi again, I'm quite relieved not to seem to have angered anywone with my earlier comments, this, as you can tell, is something that I feel quite strongly about, and I do want to stress (having done gender studies in my History and Sociology BA) that now I feel rather different to how I did as a child, however I guess the over-riding fear of the results of trying to 'have it all' and failing have in many ways influenced my choices. Java, like you I have 3 children, and I too work when they are at school as much as possible and try to be here for them. I can also see as has been pointed out that true equality is nowhere close and that the 'equality' of women was to fit into a man's world, whilst still being responsible for 'women's work' - triple shift anyone?? I think that is why my mum suffered so terribly - f/t 8-6, 6 day a week job and f/t housekeeper and parent who, although my dad is wonderful and did all he could, far more than any of my friend's parents, felt that it was 'her' job! Heck, she'd even come home in her lunch hour - 7 miles - to wash the floors! But she was expected to act as a man, no flexi hours, be aggressive in the workplace, not take time off for the children etc - nightmare.

True equality would mean that both men and women had equal opportunities in all respects, and that the high flying jobs would be p/t in some instances (among a myriad of other conditions). I too choose to put my family first for now - they grow so fast - my eldest is 16 and will go to uni soon, they will still need me of course, but not in the same way. But then we get into ageism don't we, and the fact that when you are heading towards retirement (not that I am for a while yet lol lol) it is VERY hard to get into any type of career. I also feel quite angered at the way that women are judged. If you are a working wife or mother then you are some kind of hard-nosed bitch who abandons her kids and family, but if you are a housewife you are a lazy toad who can't be bothered to get off her backside and contribute to society.

Sometimes I feel that us girls are b******d if we do and b*******d if we don't..... some equality - and until that is sorted out then we simply can't have it all and stay sane and healthy.

I think it's much more important to tell boys that they can't have it all, then the girls would be freed from taking all the responsibility for propping up the family. Also, I think men, in the UK at least, get a really rough deal where children are concerned: they're just expected to be distant and not be an integral part of their kid'slives. Perhaps if boys were taught that 'having it all' for any partnership and family means the potential for joint responsibility for work and child care must be present, then women wouldn't have to worry so much about 'having it all'. I think men can be just as 'maternal' as women, the only thing they can't do is breast feed, and I think that, in this country, they miss out on their children. My dad was much more maternal than my mum, and I know fathers who feel estranged from their kids even though they live under the same roof because of extended bread winning duties.

Not speaking from the experience of having kids here, but from observing friends and family. I do very much feel for many men re: their kids though.

I doubt I'll have kids, purely because I'm 40 now and can't see it happening in the near future. I'm not burning up about it either and I think perhaps you should be in order to bring anther human into the world (unless you have a mistake, of course!, and then its a matter of swimming with it, I guess). I'll be able to watch Dr. Who and eat sausage rolls whenever I want for the rest of my life.

Thanks everyone for replying, it is good to read other people's perspective on things. I understand now where this "not having it all" comes in, i.e. at some point women were encouraged to have it all, whilst, yes, indeed it is not possible to have it ALL AT THE SAME TIME. I suppose my gut reaction to the article was that it is "wrong" to tell young women that they will not be able to have a satisfying career and family (for instance) and that they should be happy to have lower expectations (than men). Isn't the key to encourage girls/young women to do their best, to consider the choices they make and in general to support them in whatever they want to do. Of course it is vital to somehow instill some realism into young people's heads, but at the same time, I think there should always be scope for a challenges and an aspiration of "the sky's the limit". And about men, I think, yes, in the same way as it should be acceptable for women to make their choice whether they work/stay at home/whatever, men should feel free to do the same and take out some years to see their kids grow up, nurse their elderly relatives etc, if they want to, and not be regarded lesser for it.

I quite agree with you Poppy. I'm very lucky in that my husband works shifts and he actually saw a lot more of Olivia than I did when she was little - I was studying, if he was off duty he took full parental control and did the toddler group thing, the feeding the ducks etc, all the things that 9-5 dads can't do so much. My first husband (my elder two - 10 year age gap - are from a previous marriage) used to leave for work at 6.30am ie before they got up, and get home at gone 7pm ie after they went to bed - he saw them at weekends! It wasn't his fault though and for men to have an option would be great. Having said all that, one of the big problems us girls face is employability - when we are young - ie childbearing age - then employers do discriminate - its a fact - and understandably so - my sister-in-law's firm found themselves faced with 7 out of their 10 staff all going on maternity leave within 6 months of each other - ok, so that is extreme, but 5 out of those 7, including sister-in-law have decided not to go back - the firm is in chaos. If men too had that option then it could (talking practically here) cause employers tremendous difficulties. The huge multi-nationals would cope, but your small employers with only a few staff... well!

It is having it all at the same time that is a problem, but say you don't really enter a career until you're mid twenties, then have a family in your late 20s early 30s, by the time that you can realistically hold down both a f/t career and also have been there for your kids you're pushing your 40s (like me) and then its difficult. I was a teenager in the early 80s and was told the opposite of what this report was saying - you CAN have it all, you can be a power suited (complete with shoulder pads) hard balled business woman and have a shiny brood of kids, flash house, cook tea, etc etc etc - what they never explained was quite how that was going to pan out. Maybe in a way I was lucky that I saw the reality of it with mum and didn't expect too much. That's not to say that I was resigned to spending my life at the stove, complete with apron and maybe a nice little shop job two mornings a week - heck, I'm doing this now aren't I gearing up for a later life career. But what I did feel, and still do, was that burnout isn't pretty, for the children its not great, and that life is quite long (for most of us) and I was happy to be a housewife with a few p/t jobs to keep me amused while the children were little. The problem came in when my marriage broke down and I wasn't qualified for a decent job - being a woman, even in these enlightened times, is difficult. You're pulled in so many ways.

But yes, if there was a way that men could be offered p/t work if they chose it, and that family and working life could be shared better, then maybe we could all have it all? Either that or find a husband on shift work - that helps lol. But then there's not the mega bucks... and life is harder as you're constantly searching under the bed for money for food.... there MUST be a good middle way and its my hope that the next big move in gender relations will provide a more equal balancing act.

Hi Poppy and Stressed

A colleague of mine just finished his PhD how graduate students make decisions about balancing work and family. He interviewed cohorts from two different faculties, and in both, found that the women were choosing subjects/careers for a variety of reasons, including that they would be more compatible with family life. These young women also expected that their male partners would be fully involved in child raising. The men, on the other hand, barely gave a thought to a family, but just automatically assumed that their future partner would stay home and look after the kids, adjust her career expectations etc. So we start from even early on, a lot of men have no intention of looking after the kids. And this is not an anti-male rant, just research which shows how far we still have to go if we want equality.

Stressed, the next big move in gender relations is trying to get men to take more responsibility for family life, so that they can have a career and share the joys (and drudgery) of family life. There are concerted policy pushes in this area, and just today, I notice that the British Equality and Human Rights Commission has released a report, based on interviews with thousands of fathers, showing that men would like to spend more time with their families but were frustrated by work. So, obviously, there are problems all over the place - young men aren't interested, older fathers are, but are frustrated, and meanwhile, women work triple shifts. There are solutions, with one being that fathers need to start accessing flexible working arrangements and using the innovative UK legislation which enables this.

======= Date Modified 17 Nov 2009 12:30:04 =======
[quote]Quote From stressed:


That its actually ok to be a wife and mum if that's what they chose, or to be a working woman with a high flying career./quote]



But this to me is feminism. It's about the the choice.

My friend's partner and father if her baby is broken hearted. He works 9am to 10pm almost every week day and some weekends (he's not an academic, so, yes, it happens in other fields too!) and he has no bond with his daughter that is greater than that of an aunt, uncle or friend of the family. His child doesn't run to him when hurt or upset; won't turn to him for comfort when vulnerable. He isn't from the UK and is shellshocked by the way inbalance in childcare is integral to our family and working systems. I think that's tragic: he's a lovely man who has always wanted children.