Prev
Next

I never said I wanted it all

Amy Carr

by Amy Carr

06 Jul 05:40am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Children, Employment, Feminism, Mother, Parenting, Society, Women, Workforce

70 comments

Since when did working mothers have the phrase “wanting it all” tattooed on their foreheads? To which senior professional females (also mothers) can reply: ‘Well, you can’t have it all!’?. I’m a working woman, and a mother and I never said, “I wanted it all”, thank you very much. 

Baby? No, that was just my workaholic guts churning… Pic: Thinkstock

Anne-Marie Slaughter’s insights in this month’s Atlantic Magazine have refuelled the mothers-in-the-workplace debate with the Twittersphere and other social media coming alight on the topic.

Similarly, senior or former female lawyers in the profession are happily giving presentations which tell me apparently “I wanted it all” followed by: “Sweetheart, really, you can’t have it all” without having proper regard as to the message which is really being sent.  It’s like being dumped by a boy who you were never going out with, or being told you were unsuccessful in a job that you had never applied for.

Just to be clear, I NEVER SAID I WANTED IT ALL, and even if I knew what that phrase meant, I’d probably go and do it…

Ms Slaughter would suggest that having it “ALL” means having a successful and limitless profession or career while having meaningful engagement within the family as a mother. If that is “ALL”, don’t tell me that I want the same or that I can’t achieve what I want to do in life.

The most damaging part of these accomplished womens’ messages is that their stature and achievements adds weight to their argument - and with the greatest respect to these women, their generalisations give me (merely a punter trying to do my job) yet another label, and yet another target with which to define my success.

I can assure you that I have enough goals and expectations to meet as a woman in the workforce without additional assumptions being made simply because I’ve had kids. Perhaps these women need to be a little more aware of the message they are sending - not only to families trying to get through their working day, but to companies who employ working mothers.

An annoying outcome from the fire of this debate is silly little comments such as: “Women in the workplace should be one way or the other, in or out” (usually said from men who have not had the joys of pushing a child through their vaginas followed by the pleasure of needing to explain to your workplace that you are still capable of performing a role for which you were employed to do a year ago –  which you could do on your ear!).

Actually no. I don’t have to choose, mate. I am no different in the workforce with or without kids, just like you. You’d never suggest working dads should be “in or out” or stamp “wanting it all” on their foreheads. Can’t we just get on with it? Go about our business and to get our jobs done as parents and professionals without the commentary, the tattoos on our heads, or the bloody generalisations? 

It is commentary like this which does not help and which fuels the misconceptions of women in the workplace which adds to the discrimination we see so clearly agitated now in the courts.

Oprah Winfrey (not technically a mother but the way she looks after her cocker spaniels is close enough) is almost on the money by tweeting that: “You can have it all. You just can’t have it all at once.” She just forgot to add the words, “In case you wanted it…”. Time.com was spot on with its tweet: “Why are we arguing about women having it all when most parents have so little?”.

Ms Slaughter et al - your insights and sweeping statements do nothing more than move goal posts or create additional benchmarks for success for women in the workplace. We are a group that has had to push enough shit up a hill on these issues without the workforce matriarchy fuelling misconceptions.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m ambitious and I’m driven, just like the next bloke, but don’t box me in. 

Most commented

70 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Emma says:

      06:59am | 06/07/12

      “I am no different in the workforce with or without kids, just like you.”

      I dont agree with that. I cannot schedule a meeting that goes five minutes over, because kids have to be picked up. Kids are being brought into the office on a regular basis and dumped in meeting rooms, expressing themselves on the whiteboards for hours, because there was obviously noone available to look after them. And about three times a day I pick up the phone from the hunt group and have a kid on the other line asking for mommy.

      Its not a big deal, but youre different in the workforce when you have kids.

      Reply

    • Fiddler says:

      07:30am | 06/07/12

      correct. And as soon as this starts to be acknowledged then it will likely be less a contentious point. Some don’t let it affect their work, some do. It annoys me when those who do (and had a year off maternity leave) act as if they have been in the job their entire service (as if they somehow gain experience while off work) do a half arsed effort often expecting concessions and then demand promotional opportunites etc.

      For those who don’t let it affect your work, or let it affect your work and admit it good on you.

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      07:33am | 06/07/12

      Emma I can’t schedule a meeting and then goes over time either. People make themselves available for a certain time and that is what I must stick to. It may be work related or not that is none of my business. I agree people are not the same necessarily once they are parents but neither are people who become carers of elderly parents or sick partners. Work v private is a constant dilemma and I am happy to accommodate people’s obligations to significant others who rely on them. I like having kids in the office occasionally. One 2 year old turned the photocopier off at the wall mid morning just last week. It was pretty funny - a gathering crowd of experts futilely pushing buttons until someone noticed it was turned off at the wall.

    • MartinX says:

      07:56am | 06/07/12

      Elizabeth1: all the two year old has to do now is set fire to a bin and they could be the next David Brent grin

      “Just keepin’ ‘em on their toes. Makin’ ‘em think. Good for morale.”

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      08:31am | 06/07/12

      Ha ha yeah let’s keep the matches away from the 2 yr olds.

    • TJ Wylde says:

      08:46am | 06/07/12

      I have to agree with you, once you admit that you are working to try and have it all with the family as well a lot of organisations are willing to let you bring a sick kid into work or even work from home if there is something major that’s happened. There is nothing wrong with wanting to try and have everything just as long as you acknowledge that you are going to need to work harder than others just to keep up and you will miss out on opportunities from work and family by needing to put one ahead of the other.

    • Greg in Chengdu says:

      08:59am | 06/07/12

      God not another story about whinging feminist motherhood

    • Elphaba says:

      09:13am | 06/07/12

      Don’t forget holidays.  I find that singles are made to feel guilty for scheduling holidays during school holidays (I don’t know when the dates are, so I don’t pay attention) and then you get the whole “Oh, but so-and-so has kids…”

      So what?  I have family too.  Just because I didn’t birth them myself doesn’t make them any less important.

    • Alldara says:

      09:17am | 06/07/12

      “asking for mommy”

      Do you work in the USA? Since when do we use this term here.

    • Emma says:

      09:57am | 06/07/12

      Alldara

      I didnt know we are obliged to use only Aussie terminology here. Some people have experiences life and language beyond Australian borders.

    • Admiral Ackbar says:

      10:51am | 06/07/12

      We don’t take kindly to folks who don’t take kindly to others use of American expressions around here.

      I agree with Emma, Fid et al. In addition, I’m sick of the term ‘working mother’ as though you have more to contribute and you’re somehow special. You’re not, you’re just a person who has a job and looks after their kids. I believe it’s actually called ‘being a normal adult human’.

    • kitteh says:

      12:54pm | 06/07/12

      Of course your contribution to the workforce is different when you have kids. And no, it isn’t the same as an elderly parent or sick partner or any other life-changing circumstance, because those are not presented as anywhere near as valid or important as having kids. While I’ve seen mothers in the workplace leave early to buy balloons for kids’ parties, I’ve not had such concessions while my husband was ill (life-changing illness, not a little kid with a half degree of fever) or when my father had a suspected stroke (and naturally, my brother couldn’t go in my place even though his work is flexible, because - guess what? - ‘he has kids’).

      Pro-parental (ie: pro-mother - apparently dads, not having pushed a kid out of their hypothetical vagina, don’t count) articles like this have sprung up all over the web like weeds. And my attitude has gone from ‘Okay, that must be hard sometimes’ to ‘Yeah, yeah, here’s your gold-plated cookie, and your medal, and all my wages, and what the hell else do you want from me now?’ You’re not winning any support, and if your aim is to stop people generalising about you, you’re failing miserably, since you are coming across as smug and entitled. Parents have never had it better - and for all the cries of ‘It’s ALLLLL worth it!’ they seem to be whining more than ever.

    • Rebecca says:

      01:10pm | 06/07/12

      This is why I’m scared for my future as a woman. I don’t have kids yet, but when I do, I won’t be able to work at the same time - As you say, it detracts from your focus in the workplace and also gives you less time with your children. But I can’t just be a stay at home mum - modern living costs require a double income unless the man I marry in the future happens to be wealthy enough to support a family on a single income (unlikely). It seems my only option is to simply not have children at all, unless I want to be poor, stressed out, and less able to perform my role as an employee and mother.

    • Dan says:

      03:06pm | 06/07/12

      @kitteh - plus one, well said.

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      07:38am | 06/07/12

      I never wanted it all.  I wanted superannuation.

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      08:03am | 06/07/12

      And you have it. Congrats.
      But you’re behind the feminists anyway, the latest call is for extra superannuation for women because of the extra time they take out of the workforce compared to men.

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      09:06am | 06/07/12

      Tim-Thanks Tim I do have it. Not enough probably but something to build on. I have a few good years left to generate a enough to self fund. As for extra super for women. I believe that’s a risky road to take and doesn’t seem rational. I cant find the proposal only discussions on it Do you know how they say how they will fund the increase from 9 to 12%? Employer or out of wage?

    • Elphaba says:

      09:42am | 06/07/12

      @Elizabeth1, it won’t come out of your existing wage.  Employers will have to fund it.

    • Tim says:

      09:51am | 06/07/12

      Elizabeth,
      the 9% to 12% increase in superannuation was meant to be partly funded by business receiving a cut in the company tax rate.

      Now that the government has scrapped the company tax rate cut it will be most likely be paid for by employees receving slightly lower pay increases in coming years.

      Although I dislike forcing people to do things, in this case I think the government had to act because people are so woeful at planning for their future. Far too many people have a “she’ll be right” attitude and expect the government to pay for them because of their own financial incompetence. The increase, even if funded by employees, is a good thing.

    • james says:

      10:09am | 06/07/12

      Tim says: 09:51am | 06/07/12

      Elizabeth,
      the 9% to 12% increase in superannuation was meant to be partly funded by business receiving a cut in the company tax rate.

      Now that the government has scrapped the company tax rate cut it will be most likely be paid for by employees receving slightly lower pay increases in coming years.

      Business has never paid for the superannuation, its introduction was born at cost by the employees who received it instead of a pay rise.

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      10:20am | 06/07/12

      Tim- I worry about planning for the future and I am also mindful that the future is uncertain in terms of aged pension availability and capacity to support people adequately. I have no problem with employees paying . I would be concerned with employers paying. This could impact negatively on women’s employment prospects.

    • Tim says:

      11:18am | 06/07/12

      James,
      I can’t see where I said any different?

      With the increase from 9% to 12%, which was legislated as part of the mining tax legislation, companies were meant to partly fund the increase due to the reduction of company tax from 30% to 28%. Now that the reduction in company tax has been scrapped, I’m assuming it will have to be funded by employees.

    • james says:

      01:20pm | 06/07/12

      Tim sorry misread your post. :(

    • Christine says:

      07:56am | 06/07/12

      It doesn’t stop either.  Many working women, especially in my age group, now have aging relatives.  With the trend for them to only have the ‘pigeon pair’, the burden falls to the daughter to make sure medical appointments are kept, take time off to go to accompany them to the capital for cancer treatment, explain to the staff that Mum isn’t going to ring the police because she loses stuff and accuses you of stealing it.  It just doesn’t stop with children.  It means that in spite of the myriad of degrees and wealth of experience, you go nowhere.  It’s like being a bloody nun!

      I envy women who have anything, let alone it all.

      Reply

    • Alldara says:

      09:20am | 06/07/12

      I agree with this. My two brothers conveniently walked away from any responsibility with my aging mother, even though both of their wives are at home. I have to take time off work to pick her up from hospital etc. At least my kids are now at uni and are self-sufficient.

    • Debbie says:

      12:02pm | 06/07/12

      Not necessarily. I am two sisters and one brother and it is my brother who takes the lion share of looking after our elderly Dad and has done ever since my mum died. With two of us sisters overseas and my other sister having some health issues herself it is my great older brother who has shouldered the lions share of the care. I am eternally grateful to him for his hard work and he is happy to do it.

    • Tim says:

      07:58am | 06/07/12

      30% of tertiary educated women work full time compared with over 90% of their male counterparts.

      A large proportion of women don’t prioritise their career the way most men do yet still expect to advance at the same rate as their more committed colleagues.

      If the author is arguing that women should be treated the same as men in the workforce then I’m all for it - although why she’d want to go backwards, I don’t know.

      Reply

    • Rose says:

      11:12am | 06/07/12

      “30% of tertiary educated women work full time compared with over 90% of their male counterparts’. Why is that Tim? It’s not enough to put statistics up, you need to explore them.
      The reason is that despite the inroads that have already been made for women in terms of education and employment, women do still end up carrying the largest “burden” of caring roles for children and elderly relatives. Sometimes that is by choice, other times it is left to them by men in the family who are more than happy not to be stuck with those roles. Most women accept this and just deal with it, although some women do enjoy playing the martyr.
      If men think women are “less committed” maybe they should take on these woman’s commitments and really see what some women are having to do to keep their families looked after.
      I don’t know of many women who are working part time who would expect advancement beyond what would naturally be expected given their working hours and experience, I do however now quite a few who don’t apply for promotions if they don’t allow flexibility. Sure women get ticked off when they see blokes who they feel aren’t as skilled as them rise through the ranks because they don’t have to juggle as many commitments, but most seem to accept it as a necessary evil.
      I do know some men who do the caring role, but by and large it is the female who gets to take on those roles, and a bit of acknowledgement and respect for that is warranted. If you don’t think so fine, but then don’t expect any respect for your lot in life.

    • Fiddler says:

      11:37am | 06/07/12

      yes because raising children clearly accounts for 60% of a persons working life.

      But of course Rose, it’s mens fault. Again

      This discussion was more than covered yesterday. Being stay at home with children is a lot more fun/less hard work than most full time jobs. Men work because they have to. We would much rather not.

    • Tigger says:

      12:10pm | 06/07/12

      So women prioritise caring for families over work, and men prioritise work over caring for families. Men get further ahead at work because it’s their top priority, and women become the primary caregiver because it’s their top priority.

      What’s your point Rose? That women should get further ahead at work even if it’s their second priority? Is that what equal opportunity means these days?

    • Tim says:

      12:45pm | 06/07/12

      Rose,
      it’s not enough to simply put statistics up?
      Oh sorry, I must have been reading too many of those “women get paid 17% less than men” type articles.

      But you want analysis, OK.
      The simple answer is that men prioritise their work life more than women do. Women are more likely to prioritise their family life and take time off because of it. This means that women are less likely to be advanced at the same rate as their male counterparts. So when the author says things like:

      “....followed by the pleasure of needing to explain to your workplace that you are still capable of performing a role for which you were employed to do a year ago –  which you could do on your ear!). “

      It’s complete bullshit. Often missing that extra experience has left you behind in workplace procedures and industry best practice. Sure you can catch up with extra work but it compounds when you then work part time or take extra time off to look after the kids.

      Note that this also usually happens as part of a couple as well.
      The couple will mutually decide that it’s beneficial that one partner will stay home more than the other. The partner staying home is more often the woman.

      If you don’t like it, make different life choices.
      No ones forcing you to do anything and you shouldn’t benefit at work more than those who prioritise their work life more than you do.

    • Tim says:

      12:46pm | 06/07/12

      oh and I will admit that I got the statistic wrong.
      It’s 38% of tertiary qualified gen X women compared to their male counterparts.

    • Debbie says:

      01:54pm | 06/07/12

      I believe it s a choice we made. I personally have made the choice to run my own business from home, rather than be in a full time job in the conventional workplace. My priority is my family and making myself more available to them is my choice and thats what I personally want to do. I know that if I were working full time I would be unable to do many of the things I currently do with my kids.
      Before having kids I was a highly paid senior executive in a global company, but worked about 60 hours a week and travelled constantly. Thats was great then, but no way would I want or be able to do that now, with a husband in the army who is often away a lot himself. We all make choices in life and not for one moment would I change mine and blame my career position on my kids or being a woman. Its totally as a result of the choices I have made. I think we all need to get on board with that and stopping blaming everyone else for where we are in life.

      If you work 50 hours per week and travel all the time, you cannot possibly have much time with your kids and family and have little energy for them. On the other hand if you work 20 hours per week can you reasonably expect to be CEO of a major corporation? I don’t think so. Life is full of choices and we have to live with the consequences of the ones we make in life

    • BJ says:

      08:28am | 06/07/12

      Is Ms Carr really able to do the same job? Is she able to start early and work late if that is what is needed? Is she having the same amount of time off work?

      Women cannot ask for concessions because of family committments and expect to get promotions ahead of people who are working harder.

      Reply

    • Kate says:

      09:09am | 06/07/12

      BJ, just because you’re in the office longer does not mean you’re working harder. Although tell that to my boss…

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      09:42am | 06/07/12

      If Mr Carr is doing his job as a parent the answer will be yes

    • Sam says:

      08:46am | 06/07/12

      You had my sympathies up to the point you wrote “men who have not had the joys of pushing a child through their vaginas”. Past that all I could think of was “You poor diddums, did you want a fricken medal?”

      Really completely irrelevant injection of crap into an otherwise decent article.

      Reply

    • John F says:

      10:28am | 06/07/12

      Didnt you hear Sam, pushing out a baby is justification for EVERYTHING ! It also fits in well with “being a mother I know blah blah blah” We men are just sperm donars who have the whole world at our feet and nothing to worry about at all ! It’s all just so easy for us men.
      Sarcasim.

    • Admiral Ackbar says:

      01:10pm | 06/07/12

      I really despise that sort of condascending tone from mothers whos only actual accomplishment is pushing a kid out and then looking after it like a normal person. Giving birth does not make you Yoda.

    • Fiddler says:

      03:39pm | 06/07/12

      tore my vagina, I did

    • renold says:

      04:13pm | 06/07/12

      I had kidney stones, try that one

    • MarkS says:

      08:58am | 06/07/12

      “I never said I wanted it all”

      No, you prefer deceive everybody including yourself about how you want your lunch & mine as well.

      Reply

    • miloinacup says:

      09:38am | 06/07/12

      Can you elaborate, please? I don’t understand your last line.

    • MarkS says:

      12:45pm | 06/07/12

      @Miloinacup
      Another way of saying “you want it all, what is yours & what is mine as well”.

      I earned my lunch (job, promotion, time with the kids whatever) but somebody else who had other priorities and obtained the benefit of said priorities wishes the benefits I earned by my priories as well.

      And is dishonest enough to not even admit to themselves that is what they are ding.

    • Tom says:

      02:52pm | 06/07/12

      MarkS, that was a pretty good argument that was ruined by your spell / grammar problems. I suggest in future that you don’t give your opponents such an easy free kick.

    • John says:

      09:20am | 06/07/12

      I’m male, so it goes without saying that I want it all.

      Reply

    • Blind Freddy says:

      09:29am | 06/07/12

      I like the way the OP starts out - all even handed and reasonable. BUT, THEN the inevitable “it’s all the men’s fault” man-hating rant comes out.

      You don’t have to scratch a woman very hard to find a man-hating excuse making machine underneath.

      Reply

    • Sam says:

      10:27am | 06/07/12

      Have you been able to work out how women going though pain of birth ties into the rest of the article? Got me baffled.

    • Tom says:

      02:58pm | 06/07/12

      Sam, the “I pushed a baby” line is being used as a thought terminating cliche.  It has no value other than an emotional bluff to spook people away from countering with reasoned argument.

      Someone else put it in a similar way “Didn’t you hear Sam, pushing out a baby is justification for EVERYTHING !”

    • ByStealth says:

      08:40pm | 06/07/12

      But Patriarchy!

      There you go. All women need to win arguments.

    • AdamC says:

      09:46am | 06/07/12

      I remember reading an interview with Nigella Lawson, who is obviously quite a successful woman. (I must admit, I do not really like her ‘I cut corners and am proud of it’ cooking style, but that is not really relevant to this comment.) Anyway, her view is that there are three spheres of life: professional, family and personal.

      Her view is that women (and, on assumes, men too) can really do a great job at two of those life spheres at once. Try doing three at a time, however, and you come a cropper. She indicated that she had a great family and professional life, but that her personal life, which incorporates things like leisure and friends, is not so hot. 

      Maybe that is a better way of looking at things. You can either pick your goals and excel at two out of three, or you can aim for the hat-trick and possibly fail dismally. Good luck, girls!

      Reply

    • Elphaba says:

      10:22am | 06/07/12

      Sounds good to me!  2 out of 3 ain’t bad…

    • Scotchfinger says:

      04:22pm | 06/07/12

      judging by Nigella’s figure these days, I would hazard that her professional life is taking up a little too much room. Literally.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      10:02am | 06/07/12

      Why does the entire argument revolve around the small percentage of women who are at, near or approaching the top of heady careers.
      We seem to discount the factory girls on assemble plants, or the girls who work on a packaging line in fruit processing earning the minimum wage.
      Even nurses and teachers can’t have it all because the jobs just don’t pay well enough. In these cases the woman remains in the workforce and pays exorbitant childcare to live a suboptimal life style -

      Reply

    • M says:

      12:05pm | 06/07/12

      Shh, don’t question the narrative.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      10:05am | 06/07/12

      Corporate lawyer eh? So you would know what its like to be single with a child on the minimum wage?

      Reply

    • Bill says:

      10:05am | 06/07/12

      You can have “it all” - you can have as much as you want as far as I’m concerned. As long as part of the deal doesn’t require me having to make exceptions for you in the process. The occasional favour is fine but I don’t feel I should have to deviate off my own course so that you can have your life fulfilled at every level you desire.
      Such a first world problem

      Reply

    • che says:

      10:06am | 06/07/12

      Articles like this make me appreciate what a supportive workplace I am in. Maybe it is because it is a more blue-collar industry, but they are flexible whether you have kids or not. I work in the corporate side of it, but the attitude filters through. I can’t imagine anyone in my workplace making someone feel bad for being a working mother/father, because most of them are.

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      10:30am | 06/07/12

      I’ve tried to follow the arguments made in this article and to genuinely understand Anne-Marie Slaughter’s article from the other day.

      My first reaction is that there’s a lot in Slaughter’s article which doesn’t get airtime here.

      I suggest you all dispense with this rather shallow, narrow response and read the original article in its entirety to get what Slaughter’s talking about.

      There’s learnings there for everyone.

      Reply

    • M says:

      10:51am | 06/07/12

      Typical playing of the victim mentality.

      “We are a group that has had to push enough shit up a hill on these issues without the workforce matriarchy fuelling misconceptions. “

      I’d love to hear what’s so hard for you guys.

      Reply

    • Thetruthwouldbenice says:

      10:53am | 06/07/12

      Being a parent is a job. As a parent, if you go out to paid employment you now have two jobs. Having been a single parent and worked three paid jobs, I can honestly say, no matter how hard you try, something gives. You just can’t be 100% at all of them when you stretch yourself too thin.

      So the point is to find a job that “fits” with your parenting role. Because ultimately, you can’t say “sorry kids, won’t be home to pick you up from day care today, the meeting is running over”.

      Suss out your support system, combine that with your kids ages and stages, and find a job that suits. They are out there.

      (then wait, to have it all, whatever that may be. Because the thing with parenting is “your time will come”)

      Reply

    • M says:

      11:34am | 06/07/12

      Being a parent is a choice, not a job. No one forces it on you.

    • renold says:

      11:51am | 06/07/12

      what nutter came up with the notion that being a parent is a job?

    • renold says:

      11:11am | 06/07/12

      Always be wary of ambitious people, usually they are the backstabbers, hypocrites and brown noses

      Reply

    • Chris says:

      11:21am | 06/07/12

      These debates seem to be infested with polar opposites.  On the one hand, there are those who argue that people can do it all and it’s just a matter of working hard. 

      On the other are those who suggest that really it’s impossible to do it all and you need to decide glabally on career versus family (or whatever choice).

      In reality, of course, life is more nuanced than that.

      Each choice we make has an impact on the other areas of our lives.  However, the choices are not always made in a global fashion, but rather on a case by case basis.

      For example:  this afternoon I have an important client meeting that is likely to go for some time.  It may render me later home than usual.  I will, however, attend that meeting because of its importance.  That may create pressure on my wife.  In that sense I am choosing work over family on this occassion.

      HOWEVER, if the invitation this afternoon was to go to drinks, then I would likely absent myself and prefer to spend time with my family, given it would be of lesser importance/urgency.  That again, is a choice.

      So although I am career oriented and the sole provider for my family, I too make daily decisions about priorities based on the individual factors associated with each choice.  Although, if asked, I would say I am a “family first” kind of guy, that doesn’t mean that there are situations where I would have to prioritise my work.

      On the case in point, working women who decide to have children have choices to make.  Do they stay at home?  If so, that will have an impact on their career, and probably also their personal relationships at work.  Putting the kids in day care at an early age will have an impact on those kids (whether you like it or not - that’s true) that will change the nature of the relationship those kids have with their parents.  It will likely also impact on their health and behaviours generally. 

      That may be a choice that some mothers or fathers make, and there are lots of other examples, but those choices must be made with an acknowledgement that a decision in one area will have an impact on other areas.  Those choices are not usually made in one fell swoop though, but on a day to day basis having regard to the issues.  Even a “career focussed” mum or dad might need to take a day off to look after the kids sometimes, if circumstances demand it.

      This is where the “you cannot have it all” statement applies.  It’s not that you can’t “have it all” (whatever “it” is) - but that in making your many decisions you need to be aware of the larger ripples that will be created.

      That’s my $0.02 anyway.

      C

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      01:06pm | 06/07/12

      Exactly correct Chris.

      And hopefully being functional adults, most people can realise that choices have consequences and take responsibility for these consequences.
      Far too many people are willing to blame others for the results of their own decisions

    • Vince says:

      11:35am | 06/07/12

      But of course, many lawyers choose to go in-house because they want to have children and see it as offering better work/life balance.  So something does have to give, don’t you think?

      Reply

    • Faye says:

      12:05pm | 06/07/12

      It’s funny how it always has to be about whether WOMEN want it all, whether WOMEN are hard done by as parents in the workplace, whether WOMEN are in the wrong for wanting to stay home with their kids etc…

      I know who I feel worse for in my own family situation - my husband. Until he started his new role, he could schedule work around the kids needs whenever he needed to. He had a shift working job, for what used to be a public service department (has now been privatised) and his supervisors were a great, family friendly bunch. If the kids had a something on at school, or were sick, it was my husband who frequently swapped shifts so he could be with them. He has now taken a job with a massive multi-national company who very obviously take the view that men are the workers, and women can do whatever they like as long as their male employees aren’t expected to pitch in when needed.

      Never was this more apparent, than when his hours were increased from 6 days a week to 7, for a period of 3 months. His direct supervisor and another woman working in a similar position to him were both able to curtail their weekend hours, and leave work early as they had kids to attend to. When my husband pointed out that he too had children, who he had barely seen over the last few months, he was told as long as there was someone else who could take care of them (meaning a woman) there was an expectation he would work the extra hours. I should add that these hours had not been agreed to in his contract, and they weren’t getting paid for the full amount of overtime they worked. Their justification was that he was on salary, and as such he should suck it up.

      I, on the other hand, found an employer all too happy to let me work from home if unwell, to bring the kids to work if sick (as I’m the only person in the office during school hours) and take holidays off as needed. I was upfront about our situation with my employer at the interview, that for all intents and purposes I was the only person who could be with the kids from 5am-7pm. He didn’t even bat an eyelash. It took me all of 2 days to find that job, and I had turned another one with similar conditions down in order to take it.

      Given the wide variety of options in place for most women, and the relative ease most women have in meeting the needs ot their family while working when compared with men, I don’t know why the hell we’re still so focused on our supposed issues.

      I realise people will get their knickers ina knot about my opinion, and yes I know there are women who still have difficulties in this department. I just can’t for the life of me understand why they’re referred to solely as women’s issues when they’re not.

      Reply

    • jokers says:

      10:15am | 07/07/12

      I am a full-time working mother who works for a large government department.  I enjoy working and being a mother, but to be honest, most other working part-time mothers (and fathers) give working parents a bad name.  They use their kids as an excuse to not do any work. My boss is a woman - she has 2 kids (school age) and she works 2 days a week!  I mean c’mon. NOTHING gets done and she is so slack when she does bother to show up.  The work just piles up and she is never there to sign off on anything.  Everyone else does her job for her and she gets paid big bucks and does nothing!  How can someone be employed as a boss of an important area for 2 days a week?  She probably used the ‘mother’ card and if they didn’t employ her, she would sue them.  Feminism has just gone way too far and it is now a JOKE and this affects women to their detriment.  I am a woman and I strongly believe in womens rights, but as far as work goes, there is something really bad going on with women expecting favours in the workplace and expecting to be paid certain rates and then not having to do the same work as everyone else! It ruins things for the genuine hard working mothers! There are 3 other women in my team who work ‘part-time’. They get in around 10am (on the days when they don’t call in sick, which is at least once every fortnight) and usually leave by 4pm.  They do very little.  It is embarassing how little they do and it really gives working mothers a bad name.  I am embarassed by them and it isn’t fair as someone like me works hard and takes my job seriously and organises my children so as not to let my workplace down and then these women just don’t care! I understand there are some good workers, but there are also some really slack ones who honestly give working mothers a bad name. They don’t take their jobs seriously and they expect everyone else in the team to pull the weight because they are ‘part time and have children’.  This does not mean everyone has to carry you through life.  I have children too, but I do not carry on like this at all!  If I was an employer, I would not hire a working mother (or father) unless they can prove they are totally committed to the job.  I know there are times when kids get sick or I want to attend school assemblies, but I’m talking about part-time parents who rort the system every day!  It should not be allowed. OH, and this is not just about women, part-time working fathers are really poor performers - I would say they are worse than the part-time mothers. I have reached the stage where, in my department, I have no respect at all for part-time working fathers.  They pretend to be looking after their school age kids and leave early and make you finish off their work,  but you find out later they were out playing golf!  Lazy and unmotivated the whole lot of them and the public service seems to always employ them to meet their ‘equity’ quota!  It is very embarassing. And if you are a working part-time parent maybe just think about how much ‘work’  you really do and whether your team has to ‘carry’ you continually.  I can guarantee you are not respected or liked in the workplace and the rest of your team is sick of hearing about your children.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 19 May 13 02:24PM

RT @HeatherSmithAU: Can living in another country change your life for the better? by @lucyjk on @newscomau f. moi http://t.co/E5Ma3kBut2

David Penberthy

penbo 19 May 13 01:02PM

@mooks83 sophisticated response. Think the kids parents saw it differently

David Penberthy

penbo 19 May 13 12:50PM

More class from 9's footy show, lampooning a baby that allegedly looks like Sterlo with a pic swiped from Facebook http://t.co/BGoYP6Pn68

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 19 May 13 12:32PM

A story that's close to my heart - can living overseas change your life for the better? With thanks, @Alisa_reduxhttp://t.co/n6tksJstqs

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter