Can working women have it all?

Well said Bags. I think I knew that I just wasn't that high powered either. I still had a career (still have actually) but I knew I could never be a high flyer and a mum. It just wasn't me.

Absolutely, I totally agreed. I spent 8 years as a full-time mum and free receptionist!

And yet- we do have an unprecedented shortage of doctors and other health professionals currently, coming to a peak in a couple of years- and so many of those being trained (at huge cost to the country)- having no intention of working at all, or working part-time, leaving an enormous gap in the NHS, for instance - to the detriment of all of us. This was not the case in the 70s when many of us were mums.

I trained as a teacher as a mature student, when our youngest started school. But I must say I would never have considered this if I had no intention of teaching when I'd finished.

Well, no-one can have it all - there are lots of compromises to be made.
My own view is that small children need a parent (either one) available to them during their pre-school years; and that parents need their children. How awful to miss out on the landmark achievements; not to be beside them and support them and love them during those critical years.

Three of my GC live in a two-parents-working scenario and it is a complete nightmare - especially just now when one of them is ill during school holidays.

Why would a parent want someone else to take over the care during the formative years? - we all have our own values and attitudes and I have watched the problems that have arisen with the nanny - who has very different cultural values and this is a problem.

The whole family is under tension and I worry often for my dear GC and for my DD who is totally wrecked with exhaustion...depression, anxiety, migraines etc.

What is needed is not to use this as an excuse not to educate women or to use their talents for the good of us all, but to make working practices more parent-friendly, so that spending time on the valuable task of parenting does not compromise anyone's career - male or female.

When mine were small I stayed at home with them when they were pre-school; then I worked part-time when they were old enough to cope with that; then I moved to full-time. There were some financial sacrifices, but it was a possible route then - now it is so much harder with housing costs so high.

I started to put my view down on this thread earlier but my fingers were racing in all directions and I don't know what happened to the piece I started but now that I cannot find it I don't think I'll bother as I feel that most people supporting high-flyers who work full-time leaving the nanny to cope have such entrenched opinions that I wouldn't be able to compete.

I stayed at home until the first two went to school but was remarried and had number three when circumstances wouldn't permit me to be a full-time Mum.

So what do you suggest then granjura? That female junior doctors should make a decision not to have children? Unfortunately for my surgeon daughter that is the decision she has practically made and the reason why her younger sister [equally able but soon to be married]is training as a GP.How many teachers have to make a decision like this?

Mishap, you said, "How awful to miss out on the landmark achievements; not to be beside them and support them and love them during those critical years."
I find it really quite sad to suggest that you can't love your children if you are not a full-time mother. I worked from when my youngest was two and I can assure you that it was perfectly possible to love them, support them and be there for "landmark achievements". I really don't see how anyone else is in a position to judge the relationship between a parent and a child from the outside.
I do find it interesting that it seems to be quite frequent for people to judge working mothers and implicitly to try and make them feel guilty, when parents who have worked don't seem to judge mothers who have chosen to stay at home half as often.
In my view it is about personal choice and the long-term view. I judge myself as a parent in terms of how successful, responsible and caring my children are as adults and by the fact that I have a close and loving relationship with them.
I do agree with what you say about making the workplace parent-friendly, though.

My eldest brother is a GP, considering early retirement because he's shattered. I seem to remember there was a shortage of doctors when he trained too, and that it had something to do with medical schools insisting on keeping the numbers low. If that was the case, or if we are short of doctors for some other reason, then it looks to me as if we, as a society, are simply not prepared to pay for a sufficient number. And no, I don't believe that would be impossible. It's a question of priorities. We have had a lot of governments with not much commitment to the NHS nor to state schools.

Wow, Mamie, how wonderful, you obviously got it right...you should advise Louise Mencsch!! Perhaps you were very lucky - did you have help with the children whilst you were working? I salute all working mums - inc my own daughter-in-law - who teaches full-time but her husband manages to work from home some of the time, does the school run and cooks! We grandparents live locally so are able to help especially in an emergency which has happened. Give and take and co-operate I suppose but I still think it puts enormous physical and mental strain on the whole family...little ones aged 2 or 3 being dropped off at nursery at 8am?? Can't be right can it?
Of course, there will be material benefits and many children will love the 'extra treats', holidays whatever - like to review such families in 20/30 years time to see if any lasting effects.

Anyway, it looks as if Louise Mensch can't have it all, insofar as she can't be an MP in Britain when her husband lives in New York. Surprised they, as a couple, ever considered it, really. Are the children his as well?

I should add that my surprise at their considering living an ocean apart goes both ways. I don't think it's necessarily the case that Lousie should move rather than him. Depends on their circumstances.

He's the manager of rock band Metallica. I suppose as they're based in the US he has no option.

No Dee, no help apart from a husband who shared my view that we could both have careers and bring up a family. No grandparents nearby either. I am reviewing my children as adults of forty and thirty-eight, I think the problems should have shown up by now?
My grandaughters were in full-time nursery and as I said earlier they are happy girls, doing well at school. It was a very good nursery.
I suppose I could write something like -"little ones stuck at home with a Mum bored out of her wits - can't be right can it?", but I wouldn't presume to judge.
It depends on the parent or carer. Stay-at-home Mums are pretty much a twentieth century construct actually, it certainly wasn't the way parenting was done in earlier centuries.

I suspect the children are hers and he is a rock star or producer. It sounds to me as though there has been an ultimatum. But I'm just being judgmental and reading between the lines!

bags The children are hers, not the present husband's.
Their father lives in England.

As I said, kittylester, her husband is the manager of Metallica.

I am not suggesting that working parents do not love their children!! I am sure that my DD loves hers with all her heart. But I see the cost to all the family in terms of the tension and stress engendered by two working parents.

I am not judging working mothers - most families cannot manage now with just one earner - but lamenting what they and their children and their partners miss because of the attitudes and employment practices that we currently have. It should be the norm that parents can take time out to look after their children without jeopardizing their career path.

What I am lamenting is what both children and parents miss when they have to make an all-or-nothing choice between parenting and a career.

The government needs to take the lead in changing social attitudes (particularly amongst employers) towards valuing parenthood as an important part of people's career paths, rather than a negative source of employment drop-out. It should be possible to both have a career and enjoy the vital early years of child care. Both should be valued equally.

And the problem of high housing costs needs to be addressed with urgency as a social problem that is forcing families into work decisions that they do not necessarily want.

I do believe that a child needs both parents around as much as possible in their early years (and I make no apology for that); but this should not mean that either parent need sacrifice their careers in the long term if we only had the relevant employment legislation (and supportive social attitudes) in place.

I have seen the results of poor nursery care - there is no substitute for Mum and Dad (or other consistent carer such as a grandparent). That cuddle from someone they love when they get home from school is without price. And tired parents dragging themselves in from work are in a poor position to provide attention and care. I have been watching this happen to my family and it is not a pretty sight. I would not wish this on anyone.

Sorry Anagram your post wasn't there when I did mine - is anyone else noticing missing threads and threads not catching up quickly enough?

I totally agree about encouraging flexible employment practices, Mishap.
The nurseries my grandaughters went to were excellent, but the one my grandson went to in Spain was dreadful (twelve babies with one teacher) and was quickly replaced by his Spanish grandmother.
I think it is all about good childcare, whatever form it takes. I had friends who were miserable and depressed at home with small children and their children would, in my opinion, have been better off in a good nursery. Some were much happier when their children were older, some loved the baby stage and couldn't let go of their children later on.
I think you have to look at what comes out the other end of childcare, not get fixated on an absolute right and wrong way of doing things.
It seems clear that Louise Mensch is suffering from not being in the same continent as her new husband, which is hardly surprising.

It certainly appears that the children's father won't be having it all. I wonder how he feels about his children moving to America. Interesting how even in this day and age it is still the woman who feels she has to up sticks and follow the man wherever he goes. After all she's only an MP whereas he is someone big in the music business

While working women may or may not have it all, the children of Louise M are the ones who will surely miss out if their biological father lives in England.

Why are posts taking so long to appear?

Not just me then Ella

Sorry, kitty, hadn't noticed our posts were so close together - yes, I've noticed I can post, see my post on the thread, then next time I look more posts have appeared before that post....very odd!

Just a thought. We talk of women "having it all" and we know we mean career/children/loving relationship and so on. But do we also look at it from a man's perspective? Men of my DH's generation and earlier were brought up to be the breadwinner and even with a working wife, the bulk of the domestic responsibility fell on the wife, including childcare at least when the children were tiny. How many of us used to sneak out of bed in the middle of the night so that DH could have an uninterrupted night as he had to be in the office the next say? (I hope, not just me!)
The new generation of dads is much more hands-on and I am sure many of them would love the opportunity to be at home with their children particularly in the early months and years career and income permitting. We should look at what is happening in other countries - e.g. Sweden. I heard Jenni Murray on WH a few months ago talking about "parental leave" which not only can be shared between mum and dad, but must be, the proportion being left up to the individual. If parental leave is not claimed within a period (3 years??) it is forfeit. OK this is heavily subsidised by the state and therefore taxation, but is seen to be worth it not just for the sake of the family, but as being beneficial to the economy.
So can men have it all? Do they? Many feel they too are missing out.

I so agree with you gracesmum. It is wonderful that men are more hands-on now and also that it is seen as acceptable and not a cause for mockery from their mates; but how many men work in jobs that give them the scope to play the part they would like to in their children's lives? Only legislation can make the next move for them.

We were lucky in some ways in that my OH's shifts meant that he had a day off in the middle of the week - that was "Daddy day" and I used to organise my part-time work around that. It worked out that there was always one of us caring for them when they were little.

Only my youngest was cared for at times by someone other than one of us - and the person who came in from when she was about 3 was her best friend's Mum, so she had her friend to play with at our house two mornings a week - suited everyone.

I am very wary of nurseries - some of the young people working at these places leave a great deal to be desired. I visited my first GS's nursery once and it was a sterile environment - no child of mine would have been left there!!