Guest post: ‘Women in the Media – Not’ and Motherhood V Careers

Badminton: just a few skirts away from world domination »

Guest post: ‘Women in the Media – Not’ and Motherhood V Careers

May 24, 2011 by theantiroom

This is a small rant, or maybe it’s not really a rant but an appeal. I was at the recent National Women’s Council of Ireland meeting titled ‘Women in the Media, Not’ and it was generally brilliant. There was an initiative to encourage radio and television producers to air more women, including an innovative list of possible experts in a wide range of areas so that the old excuse of ‘there are no women’ would not hold up. However a big element of the conference seemed to be to encourage women to say yes! if they are asked to give their opinion on any subject, as hesitation and unavailability are the real enemy to female participation in the media. A very encouraging and motivational atmosphere so far, the underlying message seemed to be that individual women had to take some responsibility for being out of the limelight, and increased exposure of any description is good for all women and especially girls who are used to taking a back seat.

However, one member of the panel got up to speak and revealed that a year ago she had been handed her ideal once-in-a-lifetime job. As editor of a newly launching news website she was being given creative and directional control, and full respect and power, by her financial backers, the only reservation she had going in was her two young children. She then rather painfully revealed that she had decided to give up this position, which she admitted to loving and being good at, as she could no longer cope with the responsibility of motherhood and a more-than full-time job. I say ‘painfully’, as the decision was still raw and the language she used to describe her obligation to her children was of guilt for neglecting them and uncomfortableness with leaving her children in substandard childcare (being unable to afford a more stable solution). I did not know what I expected after such a statement, but I’m still in shock over what did happen. Over the course of the conference audience members were allowed to talk and shortly one women rose to say she supported this journalist fully and that motherhood was the most important function of women and the youngest years were the most formative yadda yadda yadda and then someone else at the back concurred. Susan McKay as chair did emphasise that the NWCI supported all women, no matter their position, yet the one voice suggesting mothers and fathers be joint parents was lost.

Now, I do not know this journalist or her husband’s profession, and it’s none of my business personally how she arranges her work and childcare, but I was dissatisfied with the response from the room full of experienced worldly women. I realise now that I expected genuine sympathy for this journalist, and anger that she has all the opportunities in the world and is unable to take advantage of them. At a conference detailing the lack of women available to talk on radio, or appear on television, or write, we did not lament this loss of one more fiery journalist.

Parenthood is great, I’m sure and people do find it fulfilling, but in Ireland it is also a trap. By elevating expensive childcare out of reach of the poorer classes we denigrate their struggles as working parents and by elevating motherhood over parenthood, or any ‘other one versus the other’ mentality we will always feel guilty over our choices. That is another argument. This argument is: where is the anger? It may be an unanswerable question for the women’s movement, but that does not mean we should feel helpless. Why is no one else angry that this accomplished, intelligent woman has to sacrifice her dream job because she simply cannot juggle anymore? So I will say it now, to this woman. I am genuinely sorry that she had to give up a position that had obviously brought her much joy and professional satisfaction. I understand that she wanted to give her children the best childhood possible and I hope that they appreciate all that she does for them. I also hope that in the future there are more options available.

Anna-Lena Dubé Fuller is an Irish-Trinidadian artist studying Gender and Women’s Studies at Trinity College, Dublin. Some of her work will be shown as part of the ‘Queer as Political’ art exhibition in Cork opening on June 3rd at The Other Place.

Posted in Family, Guest Posters, Parenting, Rants, Women, Work | Tagged 'Women in the Media, Not', NWCI, Women on Air, working mothers | 62 Comments

62 Responses

on May 24, 2011 at 9:25 am | Reply C Cooke

I did exactly the same thing – gave up a fabulous job that I had climbed the career ladder for and which paid triple my husband’s salary because it was tearing me apart to spend only an hour a day with our children. I agree that more options should be available, particularly flexible working patterns, and the pre-baby me would have argued with the dogs on the street about equal parenting. Three children later, however, I do not agree – nature and the emotional bonds of motherhood have a far greater pull than professional practice. I don’t think the choice between work and family has to be either/or, and perhaps the ‘anger’ needs to be directed at redefining work to accommodate motherhood and allowing working mothers to spend more time tending to their children. I work freelance now because it is the only kind of work that will allow me to dictate how and when I work.
- on May 24, 2011 at 12:26 pm | Reply Lisa
  
  Though don’t you think that a (perfectly reasonable, IMO) desire to not spend all your time in work and to have time with your family (or skydiving or playing the bassoon or whatever) is something fathers and non-parents have too, rather than it being something innate to motherhood?
  
  I mean, maybe I’m unusual, but I don’t think my need to be with my son is any greater than his father’s, nor should it trump his.
on May 24, 2011 at 9:26 am | Reply Glitzfrau

A thing that infuriates me about all of the motherhood v. career debates is that no-one ever suggests that women’s paid work has some actual value. No, it’s always the woman’s selfish desire to have an activity outside the home, or her desperate need to earn money, that motivates her. No-one ever suggests that a woman’s journalism might have value to society, that being a cleaner, an engineer, an administrator, a politician, an entrepreneur, a nanny is actually contributing to society and the economy in a profoundly important way.

So for me, a larger point illustrated by your important post is that it’s not just that the journalist you describe should have the right to choose to pursue a career while parenting; it’s that her career also has a value to people other than herself, just as her parenting practice has a value to her children as well as to herself. Rage!
- on May 24, 2011 at 2:57 pm | Reply Ali
  
  Great point.
- on May 24, 2011 at 4:48 pm | Reply Shannon
  
  Glitzfrau, this is a really important point to make, I think! While it is important that women have free choice in their decisions around careers and family responsibilities (and I agree so much with everyone here who has pointed out the need for systematic change in order to support the career and child-care choices of all parents) all too often the loss to the rest of the world when women have to choose between ‘work’ and ‘home’ is not mentioned.
  
  As the daughter of a work-from-home dad and a mother who worked full-time (and more than full-time, frequently) outside of the home, I’m continually awed by the way my parents managed to bring in two incomes while co-parenting in a way that allowed them to each follow their dream jobs. Even more so, though, I’m proud that my strong, feminist mom was able to work for 30+ years as a physician devoted to and loved by her patients. The world would be a little worse off without people like her, and it’s important that social changes be made that allow all parents to contribute to this world in a wide variety of ways.
on May 24, 2011 at 9:40 am | Reply Yonmei

One of the many reasons why I’m childfree (though I’m a happy aunt who loves many niblings, both my two nephews and others) is that I cannot deal, I’ve faced this squarely, with the sheer disruption that having a child or children causes in a life. I’ve been a childminder, I know that under a certain age children need concentrated, exhausting attention – and they’re boring.

I wouldn’t leave children in substandard childcare if I could help it, but I wouldn’t want to have to make that choice – so my choice is to have no children, and because I’m a lesbian, having children would be something that required conscious choice and effort – I couldn’t get pregnant accidentally and “decide” that way, which honestly, I think several people I know did, and they’re great parents and their children are wonderful.

I think it’s very distressing that no one stood up and said, if a woman with small children is offered a job she loves and she can’t take it because it means leaving the children in substandard childcare because the job won’t pay enough for anything else, then something has gone wrong. Where was the child’s father in all of this? Why can’t both parents work part-time? After so many years, why do payscales still reflect the notion that a working parent will have a full-time, unpaid childminder at home?
- on May 24, 2011 at 1:02 pm | Reply Anna-Lena
  
  Yonmei, I understand totally. I would really have loved children, or even one, and although I’m only thirty I have to accept the fact that currently and in the foreseeable future I would simply not be able to handle or afford any. Having a child is a commitment and it’s not being made any easier, and as a happily single person it’s out of the question. I love being an aunt though.
- on May 25, 2011 at 8:55 am | Reply Cyniall
  
  A parent at home, is not an “unpaid childminder.”
on May 24, 2011 at 9:57 am | Reply mae Berlingeri

I have been pondering this conundrum since I graduated from my feminist university… almost 30 years ago! The more I think about this, the more I seem to think, that we women will never be totally “liberated” until the men are part of the equation. And what I mean by that? Fatherhood, stay at home dads and real shared responsibility has to play a real role.
My sister is a partner at a major national American Law Firm, she works 14 hour days and makes lots of money… but she also has a stay at home husband, who handles the children, daycare and shopping. She still comes home to take care of sick children and breast fed all three of them until they were 3 years old. She works like a dog at two full time jobs– and she has a partner who is almost 50% responsible for the children. It works for her. But without the full commitment of her husband she would have never arrived to where she is at professionally– just like I have done for my husband. And that last statement bothers me… “I wanted to save the world, but I really could not find an affordable babysitter”.
- on May 25, 2011 at 8:20 am | Reply Cyniall
  
  “stay at home dads” “stay at home husband”
  
  So the solution to the problem of women having to give up their careers, is to have men give up their careers? Can you explain how that is anything but blatant hypocrisy? Is staying at home, is something women need to be “liberated” from, then why are you advocating it for men?
  
  The whole point of this discussion was what a tragedy it is for women to have to turn down career opportunities because of childcare responsibilities, yet you have no problem with men giving up career opportunities because childcare responsibilities require them to be stay at home dads. If you have no problem with men staying home and giving up careers, then you can’t have a problem with women doing the same.
on May 24, 2011 at 10:04 am | Reply Kate Bopp

So many thoughts and quite a few emotions stirred by this topic, I am not sure where to begin. As women afflicted with the curse of ambition and drive, the torture of not being content to vegetate behind the kitchen sink for all eternity, but coupled with the natural impulse to procreate, followed by the deep unconditional love of any and all offspring – we face a diverse and frustrating series of unrelenting obstacles to challenge us every single day of our 24/7 lives. After 10 or 15 years of investment of time (about 75hrs a week), passion & creativity, sharp budgeting (frequently performing the miracle of loaves & fish), *Scarlet O’Hara* type optimism “tomorrow is another day”, most professions would be rewarding us with a promotion, or at least at this stage, such an employee would have a satsfactory salary, maybe some pension contributions, and a very credible CV to tout around town to other potential employers. Instead as a stay-at-home mom, somewhere in the mid-forties, many find themselves getting into debt to get a degree in the hope that it will get them back into the race. Only to be met with the repeated sensation of that invisible door slamming into their faces. The gut-wrenching remark is always similar. It goes something like this “but you haven’t really done anything for the past 10yrs….?” Only those who have experienced all of the above (and we are legion) truly understand the knot in the chest felt at this point. It is no wonder so many head back to the kitchen sink and dig out the cooking sherry. But seriously, what a tragic waste of so much talent and wealth of experience. We have so much to offer. We can contribute on many, many levels. The kind of character and skills honed during those deeply challenging years as a mother & manager of all things domestic, coupled with intelligence, academic skills, common sense, and impeccable *bullshit radar*, are all that is needed to drag any business through difficult times kicking and screaming into certain recovery. Disappointingly and incredibly, one of the biggest obstacles to progress is frequently the attitudes of other women. The male-imposed barriers are not insurmountable.
on May 24, 2011 at 10:13 am | Reply Curmumgeon

Thank you so much for airing this issue here Anna-Lena, and for saying some uncomfortable things. That makes it easier for the rest of us to talk about this issue.
The consistent “elevating [of] motherhood over parenthood” in our culture irritates the hell out of me too. When did motherhood become more important than fatherhood? It’s hard not to feel that it’s part of the wider dynamic of keeping women out of the workforce – a dynamic that creates an artificial dichotomy between motherhood and fatherhood.
Yonmei is so right above in her comment, “Where was the child’s father in all of this?” It upsets me that the father’s role is often completely absent from debates like the NWCI meeting you attended. Just focusing on my own family, my husband is a fantastic father and I hate the way the fatherhood aspect of his life is often devalued by the artificial elevation of the mother in our society.
- on May 24, 2011 at 11:54 am | Reply Lisa
  
  Yes yes yes.
  
  I’ll admit to being in a privileged position – I have a good middle-class job with some flexibility, I’m one of those fertility-risking harridans who waited til her late 30s to start a family, my partner is a very engaged father, we have excellent childcare and lots of extended family backup – so I don’t know how I’d feel if any of the above were different.
  
  But right now, I am a happy working mother (and the daughter and granddaughter of working women). I like having a job. I think I do something useful. I don’t think I’m a worse mother for it. I’m not feeling precious irreplaceable moments slipping away (well, yes, they are, but also a whole lot of less-appealing moments too). I don’t feel I’m going against nature. And dear God, if anyone else does PITYING SADFACE at me when they ask me “how I’m dealing with being back at work” I will GRRAARRGHH SMASH.
  
  I know the way I organize my life is not for everyone, but I’m increasingly irked by the assumption that *all* women really want to be at home with their children if they possibly can, and that their motherhood trumps all else about them.
  - on May 24, 2011 at 2:48 pm angela
    
    Yes but do you not think that some women despite having dream jobs and even possibly in your case the financial backing to have good childcare are entitled to admit that “yes I want to stay home with my children”.
    
    I personally work part time but am under severe financial pressure to return to work full time. I don’t want to. I want to spend that time with my son and my parents, who need me. I have a very supportive husband who would gladly take over the childcare if I wished to work full time but I would miss out.
    
    I am increasingly irked by the veiled criticism emanating from working mothers to non working mothers, that a woman should feel like she is missing out just because she is not working outside the home. Sometimes being a full time mother is enough, it is fulfillment and it is ok to enjoy it!
  - on May 24, 2011 at 3:18 pm Lisa
    
    Angela, of course, if they can afford it and they’ve thought it through and it suits their family, then yeah, grand stuff. I’m certainly not saying that women who stay at home with children or with other family commitments have to feel like they’re missing out if they aren’t.
    
    I’m just saying that this isn’t what *every woman* wants, it’s not what *I* want, and presenting wanting to stay at home and look after children (not that you’re doing so, but I’ve heard it elsewhere here) as “natural”, ideal, and something innate to motherhood is kind of insulting for those of us who have happily made other choices. Ditto the idea that men don’t have the “special bond” that makes them want to spend time doing childcare.
    
    Also, er, I am a full time mother. I am my child’s mother at all times. Who else would I be?
on May 24, 2011 at 10:18 am | Reply Anna-Lena

Well I like to provoke a conversation, I guess. After I wrote this little piece I came across the following conference “Women, home and work: Towards a policy that’s fair to all families” on this week. I should also clarify that I fully support people who decide to become full-time parents, I’m just ‘angry’ that they appear to be pulled apart by guilt in an either/or decision, and I think in Ireland this is particularly acute. Although feeling guilty over something may just be part of being Irish?
Thurs: 26 May: 09:30-13:30: Davenport Hotel, near Merrion Square, Dublin 2. “Women, home and work: Towards a policy that’s fair to all families” is the title of a conference held by the Iona institute “Mothers in the home are given very short shrift by policy-makers. The extremely unfair treatment of one-income married families by tax individualisation is a very good example of that. Overall, policy-makers and politicians assume women either want to work full-time or should work full-time all of their working lives and that the best way to help them achieve their desired work-life balance is to provide affordable child-care, and enhanced maternity/paternity leave. This conference will challenge this assumption.” If you are interested in attending, contact info@ionainstitute.ie or ring 01 6619 204. http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=1400
- on May 24, 2011 at 12:49 pm | Reply Anna-Lena
  
  So who other than the Iona Institute are going to tackle this issue? I apologise for not having looked them up beforehand by the way.
on May 24, 2011 at 10:23 am | Reply Shane L

“By elevating expensive childcare out of reach of the poorer classes”

I don’t know anything about the costs of childcare. But why do you think it’s so expensive? I wonder if the minimum wage could play a negative role here, artifically increasing costs.
- on May 24, 2011 at 11:14 am | Reply mollydot
  
  Would you want to leave your kids with someone valued so little that they earned less than the current minimum wage?
  - on May 24, 2011 at 2:34 pm Shane L
    
    The article complains that childcare is too expensive. So I don’t understand your concern. Surely cheaper childcare would be a good thing.
- on May 24, 2011 at 12:45 pm | Reply Anna-Lena
  
  Mollydot is right here. It’s been compared to having a second mortgage and crippling if you have more than one child, with the new initiate for free nursery it often only allows the parent to take care another child, never mind housework. Even if your kid(s) are in school the costs build up, transport on top of after-school care and then all the holidays and school closure days. I had a friend who worked full time and only earned enough to cover childcare and a few bills. Scary stuff.
- on May 24, 2011 at 4:47 pm | Reply Yonmei
  
  Most of the people who work in childcare for a living are women. Why should women who look after children for a living have their work so undervalued that they get less than the minimum wage? What about these women’s children – who will care for them? (It’s not always possible, let alone desirable, for a woman looking after children to combine this with looking after her own children.)
  
  Why shouldn’t providing quality childcare for the children of working parents be as much part of an employer’s working expenses as providing a car or a computer? Why shouldn’t provision of childcare be regarded as a basic structural necessity for a country’s government, like roads or healthcare?
  
  This is a problem that can’t be resolved just by paying childminders less money, as you seem to think.
on May 24, 2011 at 10:33 am | Reply Deirdre

This is an excellent post. My heart really goes out to women in that situation – and I know it will be my ‘choice’ some day too. We shouldn’t have to choose… but I don’t see it changing any time soon?
on May 24, 2011 at 10:38 am | Reply Suzy

Shane, quality childcare cost money, are you suggesting children should be cared for by the poorly paid? The issue is the state regulates for childcare to be of certain standards, ratios etc. but does not give support to parents to pay for it.
- on May 24, 2011 at 2:46 pm | Reply Shane L
  
  “are you suggesting children should be cared for by the poorly paid”
  
  Well, yes, as poorly paid as possible. The problem, according to the article above, is that childcare is too expensive. So cheaper childcare is the solution, no?
  
  A low-paid parent would want to spend the least possible money on childcare. If the state is artificially inflating the costs of that childcare then it may be harmful to poor parents.
  
  …Lots of ifs here, though! I don’t know what kind of income childcarers get and it might be nowhere near minimum wage, in which case my point would be irrelevant. I’m just puzzled by the responses here. People seem bothered that childcare is expensive, but don’t want it to become cheaper if it means childcare workers earn less. So I guess they want expensive childcare, paid for by other taxpayers.
  - on May 24, 2011 at 3:37 pm Anna-Lena
    
    Actually you seem to be jumping to alot of conclusions considering you ‘don’t know anything about the costs of childcare’, you forget, or ignore, that it is again mostly women (and mothers) who supply childcare, either in their own homes or in a business. I am not suggesting that they be underpaid or undervalued. There are more options, including government initiatives to encorage and support women/people in this type of business, treating it as a worthy profession, with tax relief, grants and associated skills training if people want to transfer into other areas later and I’m sure more support than I can think of here.
  - on May 24, 2011 at 4:30 pm Shane L
    
    Well I just wondered what made it so expensive.
    
    Sometimes well-intended government policies can increase costs and have unintended negative side effects. I was wondering if this was an example of that. It may not be. Hence the question!
  - on May 25, 2011 at 2:24 pm CathyBy
    
    In terms of crèche care, there are minimum conditions, in terms of facilities and space per child. There are food, heating, lighting costs. There are rates. There is a minimum number of carers, ranging from 3 babies per carer to (I think) 10 per carer for over 6s. You need extra people to cover when a child needs a nappy change.
    
    You can see it’s an expensive business. Same in the UK. I don’t know what crèche employees are paid here but I know one in UK who has a childcare degree but can only get minimum wage for childcare. Although she’d love to work with kids needs must and she works in an office instead.
    
    That’s the problem. Ideal childcare has stable carers and continuity for the children. Pay vastly lower wages and you’ve a recipe for rapid turnover of staff.
    
    What’s the solution? I don’t know. I’d think more flexibility so dependance on childcare was less might be one possibility.
    
    (I’m not involved in childcare by the way
on May 24, 2011 at 10:45 am | Reply orlaith

A conference about ‘Women, Home and Work’ hosted by the Iona Institute. *Alarm bells ringing*
- on May 24, 2011 at 12:25 pm | Reply Anna-Lena
  
  I have no idea who the Iona institute are? Maybe I should have looked them up before I mentioned them? I just liked the title. Now I’m really embarrassed. My bad. I guess this goes to show that this country really needs a free debate about this subject. Thanks Orlaith!!
on May 24, 2011 at 11:52 am | Reply Sylvia

I have a p/t job with a boss who supports family friendly work contracts- the holy grail for most working Mums. And yet I’m on career break- a strange career anteroom- as I felt that when my eldest son started school I would like to drop him off and pick him up and hear his tales of woe and triumph. I can’t complain. I was lucky to have the choice to make. Although shaving the household budget down and relying solely on my husband’s income has been tough, its not been as tough as my having to swallow the bitter pill of economic dependence.

Trying to work freelance is proving a challenge as it blurs the lines between home and work, something I haven’t adapted to yet. But, while I do want to keep a foot in the door of the working world, family life tends to erode the time you think will have for work from home. It’s a juggle I haven’t perfected yet.

THE GREAT JUGGLE is the main topic of conversation with most of my friends these days. For each one of us our situation is different. For me I love being able to spend time with my children but honestly, that role doesn’t fulfill me 100%. I need other interests, including work. I don’t want to get lost in motherhood as my own mother did, to the real detriment of her mental health. When we 5 had finally flown the nest her sense of identity was eroded beyond repair. It never recovered.

As women we need to find new ways to support each other in our roles as mothers, it’s not a competition. There’s is no right way or wrong way. Only lots of parents doing their best.

We need to create more choices in the workplace, we need to keep lobbying for more workplaces to bring in family freindly work practices. My fear is that as many of us retreat from working life to rear children we no longer have as much input into policy, into creating change.

Thanks Anna Lena for information on conference on Thurs and for opening the discussion again.
on May 24, 2011 at 12:13 pm | Reply C Murray

maybe anna-lena should have talked to the editor in question
a bit more before deriving a factual article on what she
said in a conference ?

quite a lot of the above article is quite close to paraphrasing
without adequate referencing or (possibly ) permission from
the editor/writer (and Tweeter)
- on May 24, 2011 at 12:53 pm | Reply Anna-Lena
  
  Thanks for pointing this out, I did some serious soul searching before even submitting this article but in the end I don’t think it is directed at a single person, as the comments show this is a case of ‘the personal is political’, plus I think the context of the NWCI meeting was important.
- on May 24, 2011 at 6:24 pm | Reply Mary
  
  It’s journalism, not academic research – I don’t think it needs to footnoted to Harvard standards!
on May 24, 2011 at 12:17 pm | Reply recovering screenwriter

What this story confirms for me is that media jobs don’t pay anywhere near enough for senior roles, and that women in particular need to be far more assertive in expecting, and demanding, a salary that refllects their talent and experience, and that would cover the cost of decent childcare.

I worked in television for over a decade and moved – reluctantly – into another industry when the recession hit and work dried up. It’s not my dream job by any means, but it is a whole different world when it comes to family-friendly policies that aren’t just about paying lip service to the lovely girls and their little smashers.

And I agree that childcare should not necessarily be “cheap” – why undervalue the women, and men, who work in nurseries or after-school clubs or as childminders? (We’re all in this together, right?) However, I never, ever meet a politician without failing to remind them that I expect to see proper tax relief for childcare costs in their manifestos next time they’re looking for a vote.
on May 24, 2011 at 12:19 pm | Reply Jennifer O'Connell

Hi Anna-Lena,

Thanks for the post. I’m glad you enjoyed the NWCI conference that day and sorry you were left so disheartened by my contribution.

First, thanks for the anger on my behalf and the sympathy you’ve extended to me. I just wanted to clarify a couple of things, if I could.

I didn’t say that day that I felt guilt for neglecting my children – because I don’t (either neglect them, or feel any more guilt than is normal about them).

I also don’t feel uncomfortable about “leaving [the] children in substandard childcare” because I don’t leave them in substandard childcare. I have the help of a fantastic, fully-qualified, caring childminder, who minds them two full days a week, and they’re in a great montessori every morning.

My comments on childcare reflected the fact that good childcare is expensive, and unfortunately I don’t earn enough to be able to afford it for them full-time – even if I wanted it full-time.

On your comment about the need for mothers and fathers to be joint parents, I couldn’t agree more. As I said that day, I have a fantastically supportive husband. I didn’t say it then but it is the case that he also does one school run every day, prepares and feeds them at least one meal a day, and often all three at weekends, puts them to bed almost every night, does his fair share of taking time off when they’re sick – generally he does as much as is humanly possible for someone in a demanding full-time job.

So the difficulty I had combining my job with the need to be there for my children is nothing to do with a lack of support from home.

Perhaps my column for The Sunday Business Post this weekend explains my situation best: http://www.thepost.ie/agenda/off-message-56362.html

I think one of the difficulties with this debate every time it comes up is the inclination to think that when we talk about “having it all”, everyone’s concept of “all” is – or should be – the same.

For me, having it all means being there to watch my children grow up, and having a fulfilling career on my terms. In that order.

It took landing the job of my dreams for me to realise that although it brought me a lot of professional satisfaction, trying to do it all wasn’t working for me personally. I wasn’t merely juggling, I was struggling.

The decision, in the end, wasn’t about my kids – it was about me.

But I’m lucky to be in a career that does allow a lot of flexibility, and the ability to work part-time or to freelance. As I said that day and in my column, I’m definitely not going to be disappearing into a cloud of self-raising flour and a flurry of playdates.

Thanks again for the comment,

Jennifer
- on May 24, 2011 at 12:37 pm | Reply Anna-Lena
  
  Thank you Jennifer,
  I have to say the conference was an eye-opener for me, in fact I’d never have wrtten this, and submitted it, without the example of women like yourself that day. I don’t know why I felt compelled to write this when I know many many women who have had to make these choices, I think my surprise is still centered on the context of the meeting, ‘Women in the Media – Not’. Good luck, I know I’ll be seeing your name often.
on May 24, 2011 at 12:35 pm | Reply C Cooke

Hi Lisa,

I should mention that my husband dropped his working hours when my first child was born, quit entirely when I went full-time, and has recently switched careers so he doesn’t have to be away from us too much. So I completely agree that fathers need and want to spend time with their children. But I understand what Jennifer O’Connell says when she mentions that it was ‘her’ – even though I had decent childcare, the conditions of my work – and I emphasize the conditions, not just working in general – meant that I suffered from having to juggle far too much and not enjoying my family. Ultimately it’s a deeply personal thing, but I do think employers should be pushed to design working conditions much more flexibly for parents.
on May 24, 2011 at 1:02 pm | Reply C O'Reilly

I know I am an extreme case, but even lone parents with kids with special needs may want to work. But it seems that most companies in my field expect me to fit their requirements exactly – travel, flexible hours, late working at short notice etc – and if I can’t there’s always someone younger with less responsibilities who can fill the post. But if happy employees are more productive and loyal, perhaps the option of flexible working hours would benefit us all?
on May 24, 2011 at 1:46 pm | Reply Ciara

While agreeing with the sentiment of the article and comments, the constant indication that women are ‘naturally’ more inclined to parenthood, caring and nurturing surely goes against the theory that gender is a socially constructed binary we preform. This is a very basic gender theory and I’m surprised that as a feminist site, it is not being recognised or mentioned..what do people think?
- on May 25, 2011 at 8:49 am | Reply Cyniall
  
  Perhaps there is more concern with real life, than with “gender theory.” But does feminist theory that gender is socially constructed, mean that we are not allowed to be in exclusively heterosexual relationships? I mean all the talk of “husbands” and “fathers” is a constant indication that women are “naturally” more inclined to relationships with men, and that goes against the theory that gender is a socially constructed binary we perform. This is a very basic gender theory and I’m surprised that as a feminist site, it is not being recognised or mentioned..what do people think?
  - on May 25, 2011 at 11:50 am Ciara
    
    Again I’m not taking my views from feminist theory, but I am aware of gender from an anthropological point of view. I don’t understand where I indicated my opposition to heterosexual relationships?Just to clarify, I do think we are allowed to be in such relationships! I like to think that gender is part of real life, as it is that one identity that people actively identify with cross-culturally, and affects every aspect of their ‘real life’. I’m a little taken back by your sneery comment, I really don’t think its necessary and is intimidating to others who would like to join into the debate.
on May 24, 2011 at 2:40 pm | Reply Yonmei

Totally agree with you, Ciara – sorry that didn’t come across in my comment.

I think it’s not just a question of “Where’s Dad?” but also “Why don’t more governments value childcare?” Parents need childcare to do their jobs. But it’s regarded as an expense for the mother, as something the father should expect to get for free, and if provided by the employer, I think it’s still regarded as a benefit, taxed accordingly, not as a necessary work-related expense! If company cars can be provided tax free, why not company childcare? Why shouldn’t a creche be regarded as essential as an outside smoking area.
on May 24, 2011 at 5:41 pm | Reply Ciara

Yonmei – Part of the answer to your questions lies in how the society we live in ( and pretty much all societies that have succumbed to industrialisation and subsequently capitalism) is organised. The fact that most paid jobs where made for men, are 9-5 and do not take into account family life – which is left to women, particularly evident in Ireland if you go by our constitution. Rearing children and working in the home is not recognised or valued by our government and by society. f it was , the company childcare would be a reality and women wouldn’t have to agonise over choosing home life,which is deemed natural to them, and an outside career! Also, I’ve found it particularly interesting this last while how Irish media have been running features on stay at home dads as if its so unusual and something that needs to be highlighted and applauded..
- on May 25, 2011 at 8:34 am | Reply Cyniall
  
  ” running features on stay at home dads as if its so unusual and something that needs to be highlighted and applauded..”
  
  Yes, and since we oppose the “gender binary” we must demand similar highlighting and applause for stay at home moms. Right?
  - on May 25, 2011 at 11:34 am Ciara
    
    What I mean is its just as natural for males to want to be parents as it is females, it’s just that our culture attributes these charataristics to females. I think this is something that is equally unfair to both males and females . And Im not taking this from a feminist stance, but an anthropological one.
  - on May 25, 2011 at 1:00 pm Dee
    
    Yes, indeed. Except instead of applause and highlighting how about it’s rewarded with cash?
    
    There are double standards at work, men are regarded as ‘wonderful’ if they are actively engaged in parenting, women are just expected to be. Likewise men parenting alone are saints, and women parenting alone are…. well let’s just say they are portrayed in more negative terms.
on May 24, 2011 at 5:56 pm | Reply Jules

Good article. But the “substandard childcare” thing jumped out at me- there isn’t anyone who would leave their child in childcare which they consider to be substandard and the commentator corrects this above. Shouldn’t the original article be modified?
- on May 24, 2011 at 9:22 pm | Reply Anna-Lena
  
  Actually my point was that Jennifer didn’t want to put her children into cheaper/substandard childcare (as she points out her childcare is above average) yet I have known cases where children have been taken care of by unqualified people in rather untrustworthy circumstances because the person was willing to take less money ‘on the side’, so it does happen. Substandard is like a red flag in the post, but unlicensed childcare does take place, and although most times it is a mother taking an extra child or two, it can also mean an irresponsible person packing eight kids into a sitting room for hours on end. Substandard can also simply refer to inflexible hours, or in my sisters case the after-school care was some distance away from the school, so she had to arrange for transport and trust all went well.
on May 24, 2011 at 6:44 pm | Reply Kate Bopp

Sylvia

Your words resonated with me. I too am one of a large family (6) and remember my mother struggling with the burden that such a workload and responsibility entails. I have 5 children and now understand the frustrations only too well. Another point I would like to add, and it is one I raised on air in a Newstalk discussion on gender quotas. I would like to see more boys and young men trained in childcare. This would effect fundamental change in the way society perceives gender roles and it would introduce much needed balance both to the childcare industry and the rounding of children’s development. If our little ones grow up seeing nothing strange about *Mr Nanny* they will be part of a whole new kind of enlightened age. If we want society to change we have to get the message across to them early in their development. The hard work is getting the wheels in motion now, but if the culture of equal gender responsibility for childcare becomes the norm (perhaps by introducing gender quotas into childcare) we will be well on our way to a truly equitable society.
- on May 24, 2011 at 8:15 pm | Reply Sylvia
  
  Thanks Kate
  
  I agree about male childcare workers- in fact in my sons’ creche last year a young male student was working there briefly on work placement. This was especially great for some of the children who’s fathers were absent from their lives and so lacked the opportunity to engage with male role models.
  
  It is important, I agree that childcare become society’s role, not just the mothers. Childcare should be provided by the state, fairly to everyone- to answer Shane’s comment above. Childcare is underpaid because society doesn’t value the work of caring for children. Parents want quality childcare that pays the carers fairly but the fact that jobs, typically held by women, are still paid less means that women have to balance the need for quality with the need for affordability.
  
  Without a doubt if we could all pay €650 per week for a highly experienced, well qualified childminder who would come to our homes and love our children as well look after them we would. Quality affordable childcare, during the boom years of lots of jobs, was the single most common barrier to work/education/training for lone parents in this country.
  - on May 25, 2011 at 8:41 am Cyniall
    
    Children need male role models? Doesn’t that perpetuate the “gender binary” that feminists want to end? If you believe that the only difference between the genders are ones that are artificially constructed, then how can we insist on the need for children to have “male role models.”? Do you also believe single mothers must seek out “male role models” for their children? Do you think lesbian mothers should be required to have males in their lives?
  - on May 25, 2011 at 10:19 am Sylvia
    
    Cyniall
    
    As a feminist mother of 2 boys – aware that gender is constructed by our society- I DO believe that boys benefit from having men in their lives who perform caring roles- whether father, male childcare worker, grandfather, family friend.
    
    Mainstream society does not in the main offer many images of men in caring roles. If as a society we are to mature and look after all members of society fairly we need to develop an ethic of care. Masculinity-in gender terms- doesn’t necessarily offer boys and young men the opportunity to develop a caring side. Yes they can learn this from their mothers, whether heterosexual or lesbian but I believe men can also model this role for them. Many Irish men of this generation want to participate actively in childrearing and have real relationships with their children rather than the traditional role of disciplinarian/provider of older generations.
on May 24, 2011 at 9:29 pm | Reply Sinead F

I get this.

I have been wrangling with the mammy vs careerwoman debate for nearly 3 years (my older boy will be 3 in September)

The recession has made decisions for me, after maternity leave no. 1 I was put on reduced hours to a child friendly/ bank manager unfriendly three day week. I felt guilty for the three days I left my baby, guilty for the two days I abandoned my clients, resentful of the office calling me on the days I wasn’t getting paid to work for them. I was lucky to find a fantastic and very flexible who loves my boy like her own grandchildren.

Yesterday, I returned to work after my second maternity leave to clean out my desk, I was made redundant. Five years with the firm, nine qualified and now, without getting the opportunity to make the hard choices I am now a stay at home Mom. I know some things- I’d never have been ballsy enough to ask for part time hours from my boss, she’d never have said yes and don’t think I could ever have given up my career to stay home full time but here I am.

I get annoyed when people say that my leaving work is a waste (which it is) or when they dismiss my losing my job as being great for the kids (which it is). I am devastated to lose my career, part of my identity and the hopes of reentering the profession. I am mourning that and trying not to let the guilt of mouring my career affect my two smiling boys. Guilt, Guilt everywhere, it’s an occupational hazard as a working Mammy.
on May 25, 2011 at 1:53 am | Reply Deirdre Costin

I really wish I had been at the conference. I am currently on maternity leave with my third child and will be going back to work fulltime in Sep and I also work in media. It’s one big juggling act. If you ever plan to run the conference in the West please mail me!
on May 25, 2011 at 10:51 am | Reply Jennie Ridyard

Arriving late here, but I feel the need to add that — as an EXTREMELY single parent to two children for many years, receiving little or no maintenance at all (the most I ever got was €300 in one flush year, ack!) — I could never have fed my family if it weren’t for working fulltime (at a newspaper), and I could never have worked fulltime without a loving, albeit crowded, daycare and an incredibly supportive mother. My mum was my rock. My dad too.
I said it on an earlier post and no doubt I’ll repeat myself until I die, but it is the village that brings up a child, the community, a whole clutch of loving friends and family members. Anna-Lena is so right: it shouldn’t be about motherhood, but about parenthood, and the all-important family-”hood”, about community and general support for each other. And businesses are part of the community too.
on May 25, 2011 at 11:17 am | Reply Anna-Lena

I have to say I’ve been blown away by the responses to this ‘little’ article. Sometimes when you study a subject you are immersed in it and you start to think that the problems are insurmountable, or are so ingrained that no one else struggles with the same questions. Cyniall you may need to learn more about gender theory before you focus so entirely on the so called difference between theory and life, or gender binaries. This article was a theory until people responded with their own life stories, and if I could hug all of you who live with this issue I would, but I think we may need more practical solutions. Lets hope by asking these questions we have taken a first step.
Oh and Deirdre at the conference a website called journalist.ie was particularly mentioned, it might have the resources you need.
on May 25, 2011 at 12:11 pm | Reply Jules

Hi Anna-Lena,

I understand your intention but that’s not how it reads in your original piece – “her uncomfortableness with leaving her children in substandard daycare” – the reader would have to make a huge leap to interpret this as her being determined not to resort to leaving them in substandard daycare.

Jules
- on May 25, 2011 at 12:59 pm | Reply Anna-Lena
  
  Hi Jules,
  No problem, that was a fault with the writing I’m afraid. I’ve never written anything outside of essays and artist statements so this type of thing is quite new. Thanks for the feedback, I really do have to be more careful.
  Anna-Lena
  - on May 25, 2011 at 1:19 pm Anna Carey
    
    Would you like us to edit that bit in the original post, Anna-Lena?
  - on May 25, 2011 at 1:28 pm Anna-Lena
    
    Hi Anna,
    I don’t think it needs editing in the original post, as long as Jennifer is not too offended by it, (that was never my intention!). It has also raised some interesting responses which would not make sense if the original post is changed. Thanks though.
on June 2, 2011 at 10:16 pm | Reply Kate Horgan

When the 1916 revolutionary leaders took over the GPO, the proclamation they read out promised to “cherish all children of the nation equally”. By the time we became a Republic in 1948 this had changed to a constitutional promise “to protect the family” – and of course, the famous article 4.1.1. promising economic circumstances would not oblige a mother to work outside of the home. Perhaps if the emphasis had remained on providing for the nation’s children (in whatever situation they found themselves) and not on the narrow idea of a nuclear family with a stay-at-home mother, we would be further along the road now towards workable and fair childcare solutions. The idealisation of stay-at-home motherhood has deep historical and cultural roots.

Comments RSS

The Anti-Room