Can women have it all?

As Libby Purves suggests, the “elephant in the room” of UK economic and social policy is the astronomic cost of buying and running a home. As many respondents make clear, most families are forced to have two incomes to feed and shelter even a small family. But I simply cannot imagine either of the main parties addressing this problem, as high property prices are deemed the “feelgood” factor which drives the modern, consumption-led economy - and the tax revenues which are derived from that. For Labour, the status quo is fine - far better to have two incomes, and two sets of tax revenues, plus taxes from childcare providers and their employees, than a single revenue generator in each household. I cannot see a change from Blair to Brown making any difference to this policy. For the Tories to challenge the situation, they would have to work out a way to reduce house prices and existing mortgages. Fundamentally, they would have to build lots of houses where they’re wanted (generally, alas, in their own constituencies), at the same time as engineering a dose of inflation to depreciate existing mortgages rapidly. You could say that these are hardly natural Tory policies! To become the “party of the family” they would also have to accept reduced tax revenues as a result of mothers (or fathers) leaving the workplace and returning home to look after their children. Any ideas, Mr. Cameron? Mark Allen, Oxfordshire

In my humble, stay-at-home opinion (any spelling mistakes should be blamed on a woefully under-stimulated brain), children are only better off with a stay-at-home mother if that is exactly where she and her partner want her to be. I know a lot of women who could easily stay home but who would go stark mad having to sing “the wheels on the bus” 20 times before breakfast. I know others who would like to stay home but whose husbands want the status not of a clever non-working wife, but of a trophy wife with an impressive career. In either of these situations are the children really better off being cared for by the mother? Charlotte Warner, London

How come we never have a debate about whether men can have it all? Why is it always the woman who has to choose between her career and her children? Half of the career problems of working mothers would evaporate if they were competing in the workplace with men who also struggled with childcare responsibilities. It’s time for society to start rewarding parents, regardless of gender, for their contributions to the next generation of taxpayers. Name and address withheld

As usual Libby Purves has hit the nail on the head. I particularly liked her last paragraph. The assumption that rising house prices are a good thing is crazy. And sending babies to nurseries to be looked after by someone less suited to the task than their own mothers smacks of taking in each other’s washing. For a start, the personal tax allowance of anyone with a child under three should be transferable to their partner - a drop in the ocean for the mortgage but at least an acknowledgement that caring for a child is the most important job there is. Ann Franklin, Rugby

As a British citizen and young mother of a child aged two, living in Argentina, I probably would have whole heartedly supported the under threes with mum debate, having been raised with that as the norm. Until, that is, I encountered the expertise, love and devotion of childcare in Buenos Aires. As a partner in a newly-established business, my pregnancy was an unexpected surprise. I opted to move to Argentina and continue to build a future for my son. As pubs are to Ireland, so kindergartens are to Argentina and having visited/vetted more than 20 places in our area, I couldn’t fault more than three or four. Argentina is like 1960s England in terms of community and family values. Children matter, and for that reason, childcare is a pure vocation. My son runs to jardin every morning. A child with a loving but uncreative, non-stimulating environment will suffer as will a child in a kindergarten that is a non-loving institutional environment. Like all things in life, make your choices carefully and be confident. Remember, they used to say smacking your child for not eating or sleeping was the right thing to do. Fiona Bengtsson, Buenos Aires

Women should not feel guilty about leaving their child in a well-run nursery, nor should they be made to feel so by psychologists who keep changing their minds about whether it is a good or bad idea, or by journalists from a different generation who didn’t have to incur the enormous cost of mortgages today. I am tired of reading that women today “have a choice”. Of course I have a choice; I could raise numerous children and not work, my husband could choose not to work, too, and we could therefore live off the system and get the Government to provide us with a house, pay our bills and cover our food costs. But my husband and I made our choice, we opted to have a mortgage and pay our bills. We adore our son, and weekends with the three of us are very precious. How can Steve Biddulph be so sure that parents who leave their babies in nursery before the age of three are likely to damage their development? I’ve seen children raised by stay-at-home mothers who suffer later in life because of the devastating effects a break-up in a marriage can cause. A child needs a happy and loving home irrespective of whether one or both parents work. Jenny Desmond, Oxford

Libby Purves - pile on the guilt! I’m writing this with my four-month-old asleep on my shoulder and my two-year-old currently suffering irreparable damage for life by spending the day at a good quality nursery where she seems very happy. I’m due back at work in two months and seem to have no good options. Staying at home is financially unviable, and would mean the end of a career I’ve spent 15 years building. I’ve no relatives living in the country, let alone nearby. Quality of childminders and nannies seems even more variable than quality of nurseries, and much harder to monitor and control - now I’m told even quality daycare isn’t good enough. Help - what do I do? Debra Webb, Reigate

The phrase “having it all” is confused with the term “having it all at the same time”. I do believe that to achieve the former is possible, to achieve the latter is not. I am a 35-year-old mum of two who enjoyed a fulfilling and well-paid career for ten years before giving it up to raise the children. I felt fulfilled at work, and yes, for a moment I had to pinch myself to question “am I really doing the right thing in giving up all these privileges?” But all those privileges were quickly replaced by the wonderfully fulfilling experience of caring for my children. If lots of money matters, then I don’t have it all. If reaching my potential at work matters, then I don’t have it all either as I know that I could have progressed further if I had continued. However, I know I had a great career in those pre-children years, can adapt to the change in financial circumstances, and am now fulfilled as a wife and mother. I also know that the workplace will always be there to return to when family life is better suited to it. Women place too much pressure on themselves by trying to do it all at the same time. Name and address withheld

This debate is too crucial to be superficially ranted about using a few anecdotes, the de rigueur reference to one or two experts, an extremely narrow definition of “working mother”, not to mention a whole host of other issues thrown in for good measure. If Libby Purves’s article is meant to be a provocative rant, she has succeeded. A scientific, rational and qualified analysis it is not. Sean Lund, London

It is becoming more and more clear that there is a group of feminists who will not settle for equality, and are hell-bent on all-out supremacy. The only sexism I witness on a regular basis are repeated jibes on how rubbish men are. If I inverted the gender of the lists of jokes about men that regularly hit my inbox before forwarding them on, I’d get sacked and chased down the street like a pestilent rat. Women should do what makes them happy in themselves, and not try to live up to some pie-in-the-sky ideal penned by a deluded militant. Simon Clark, London

The great mantra today for the “have it all” woman is “choice”. Fine; but at least let it be informed choice. Are you aware of some of the effects of persistent stress on the developing infant brain? Are you aware that babies and toddlers experience very real stress if left for long hours in some day nurseries? Have you read about the different reactions to nurseries of the under-2s-to-3s and the over 3s? If you read it up and weigh it up and, in addition, consider what your baby’s choice might be as well, then indeed your choice is a free one. Diana Dean, Cambridge

I am 28 and would dearly love to have a child. I can’t afford to; my partner and I can’t afford to buy a house where we live (even though we both earn above average salaries and have a deposit). We wouldn’t be able to afford to rent our (one-bed) flat were we to have a child: we could neither afford to pay our rent on one salary nor pay for those cost of childcare so we could both keep working. It’s not that we want it all, or are too interested in our careers. The simple truth is that house prices, and the cost of living, are too high for us to start a family - even as working graduates in our late-20s. We have no choice but to wait and to try to earn more so we can buy a house (which means focusing on our careers). By the time we can afford to have children, we might not be able to. This situation has not been caused by women ‘wanting to have it all’; it has been caused by the deregulation of the mortgage market (in the 80s), and ridiculous levels of property speculation (still continuing, and often based on people buying second homes to let as investments) which has driven the prices of houses, compared to incomes, way beyond the experience of previous generations. My parents could afford to buy a family house on one income in the 1970s and early 1980s; I can’t afford even the smallest flat in my area of the south-east, where local house prices are over ten times average incomes. The long-term demographic implications of a generation with its lives on hold, waiting to be able to have a house and a family, are hugely worrying. The birth rate has already fallen below replacement levels. Those who think children are a lifestyle choice: ask who will pay for your pension, pay the tax to keep your country running, carry out your healthcare, and rent your buy-to-let investment properties in the future? Children support a society: it’s not in our collective interests not to support both women and men in having and raising families. Name and address withheld

American workers get hefty tax breaks for each non-earning dependent they support, including spouses, children and aged relatives. This encourages couples with dependent children to send the highest-earner out to work full-time, while the other stays home full-time with the kids. The system doesn’t encourage part-time working at all, so there isn’t this glamourising of the part-time job that causes so much workplace inefficiency, resentment, stress and career suicide among working British women. And it is really quite common for the full-time homemaker to be a man, particularly where the couples are graduates. Coming from Britain, I found these male career homemakers mildly shocking - they are much rarer in Britain. Now why would that be? Katherine Kirk, Maryland, USA

Married women generally work these days because of economic necessity born out of large mortgages, even for the humblest of homes, high council taxes, high gas, electricity and petrol prices, not to mention government charges such as VAT, National Insurance and the like. Very few men earn enough to ‘allow’ their wives to stay home indefinitely to raise a family. In addition, now that women are better educated than ever before, there are more opportunities for them to contribute in a far more significant way than at any other time in our history, why should they be regarded as ‘baby fodder’? But here’s the ‘rub’ - how many women are completely satisfied with working outside the home? I suspect the answer is not too many, given the stresses of trying to juggle motherhood with a career. Some manage it of course, but a great many more do not, at least not to their satisfaction. Colin Cumner, Adelaide, Australia

To all the men who have commented that no one can have it all, and that men have a raw deal, let me, as a woman, respond. Thank you. You are absolutely 100 per cent correct. We women must stop being so selfish and must recognise that, every time we demand something for ourselves, other people have to give up something in exchange. If I want to work part time, a co-worker has to work longer hours to compensate for me. If I want to take a week off at Christmas or whenever, a co-worker is obliged to provide cover for me. I just learned last week that several of the men, and all of the single childless women in my workplace, have never been able to take time off at Christmas. The reason for this is simply that selfish mothers like me always demand that we be given as much time off as we want. Since the business must remain open, my co-workers have had to bear 100 per cent of the financial and emotional costs involved. How long can I go on demanding such sacrifices as “my right”? Why do I think that only I have a right to a work-life balance? Do I really believe that only I am entitled to spend quality time at home, go on holiday, buy a house etc? Is it fair that I expect other people to work much longer hours in order to subsidise my comfortable lifestyle? Perhaps it’s time I stopped whining about all the things I can’t have and, instead, recognised that I am already unjustifiably privileged. If I want more out of life, I must sort that out for myself and stop expecting other people to pay for it. I used to tell people that becoming a mother had made me much less selfish, because I now had children to consider. Now I realise that the opposite is true. Nowadays, all my time and attention is focused on my children and I completely ignore the rest of the world. I am disgusted at myself and heartily ashamed of my own behaviour. Name and address withheld

What is it about mothers that makes them think they are special? They are the most arrogant, selfish people in the world. As a single, childless woman, I am sick and tired of having to work extra hours, unpaid, in order to support other people’s families. It seems that only working mothers have a right to family life, which they interpret as meaning they receive 150 per cent of the pay for doing only 25 per cent of the work. At the same time, non-working mothers seem to think that they should enjoy the kind of luxury lifestyle that hard working people can only dream of. People choose to become mothers. Therefore, they should be prepared to make the sacrifices that inevitably ensue. They should stop demanding that other people make all those sacrifices for them. Name and address withheld

I think it’s important to remember that men need to want to have children as well as women, and the age that men want to settle down has increased along with women. I am 26, and I know no men in my peer group who would be happy to be a father now. As a woman in my mid-twenties I’m bored of being blamed for all this. It’s a total social shift for both sexes. Of course I work, and of course I want to do a job that I enjoy and do it well. I think all the questions that are asked of women should also be asked of men. Do they want to give up a career for their children? Do they want to have children before they are 35? Can they pay for a house and children and so on? Victoria Bolton, London

Of course anyone can “have it all”. One only has to define what “all” is to them. To me “all” is being single, no children, being able to do what I want when I want, living within my means, a job that satisfies without a lot of stress, being healthy by being responsible for my well-being, not having a lot of “stuff”, living simply, and having a fairly good lending-library close by. That is my “all” and I’ve had it for the better part of my 50 years. You’ll never “have it all” if you let others define “all” for you. Name and address withheld

Feminism was about women having the choice to work, and to be seen as equals as men. Unfortunately we took it too far and then wanted it all. As society now shows women cannot have it all. House prices means that both men and women have to work, children are dumped in nurseries all day and in front of the TV at night. I am all for women in the workplace, but you can’t have that and children. Something will suffer, and if it’s not your children it will be your work. Women now have choices of how to live their lives, and I choose not to have it all. I am therefore much happier and far less stressed because of that decision. Marianne Phillips, Lytham St Annes

In Camilla’s article she asks, “Why else would we be the first generation to believe that we ‘cannot afford’ to raise our own children, when average national income is higher than ever?” Because now you need two incomes to buy the average house rather than one. In short, we aren’t really richer than the previous generation. I am the same age as my parents were when they bought the large family home that I grew up in on my father’s sole income. I now work in the same profession as my father but I could never afford the same house without my partner also working full-time. Stephen Grindle, London

After nearly 35 years of marriage, I am surprised that women ever felt the need to embrace the feminist movement; women have always been the most dominant member in a relationship, in control and - if they put their minds to it - able to organise matters and get anything they wanted without the desire to have their supremacy trumpeted to the world at large. Tom Edwards, Bromley

As one of the first generation of “house husbands” - my children are now grown up - I cannot, for the life of me, understand women who find child-rearing boring. It was the most fascinating and fulfilling experience of my life to bring up my two young lads. I had no supervisor and arranged my day’s work as I wanted. Now they both have top-notch degrees from Imperial College and Oxford, and we’re the best of pals. “Drudgery?” - you’re joking! Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames

Of course women can have it all - as long as men pay for it and society collapses because of it. We allow positive discrimination so that women can get jobs they don’t deserve; we allow ridiculous (and costly) preferential treatment for women once in the workplace; we allow women to fail at these same jobs then claim ludicrous payouts for vacuous claims of sex discrimination; we allow women’s wants (never needs) to dominate the divorce courts; we allow men to be pilloried for domestic abuse when women commit much of it; we allow women to dominate arguments about all these issues at home/work/anywhere by the simple expedient of bursting into tears and we allow massively more research spending on women’s health issues despite men dying earlier than women. And on top of all of this and so, so much more, we are forced to listen to their constant moaning about how hard done-by they are and how they are worth so much more than men. Western women are the most pampered, fussed-over species that has ever existed on this planet ... and yet the self-indulgent whining never ends. Derek Sinclair, Dundee

I wonder why women thought that feminism meant one could have it all? Man have always accepted that one cannot have it all and do not complain about the situation. If you were to look closely at the lives of successful men you would find that they did not have it all. They also have their regrets as they missed out on a happy marriage, time with children, socialising with friends or just time to admire nature and contemplate. Vinay Mehra, Purley, Surrey

“Many women find that they cannot do everything as well as they’d like - the job, the marriage, the children” - it should be patently obvious to anyone after a moments’ consideration that no one has enough time in their lives to address all of these adequately. We live in a world of choice, and women have certainly acquired the right to choose how they spend their time. To imagine that they might “have everything” is both greedy and nonsensical. Neither do men “have it all” - we are either full-time workers, or for the lucky few, full-time fathers. To do a job properly you have to do it full time, and the definition of full time is “not leaving much time for other things”. Maybe this is the moment that feminism grows up and women learn that they cannot have all that was promised. Alex McGregor, Plymouth

It’s not just something that applies to women - no one can have it all. There is no thing as the perfect mother, wife, husband, father. Everyone has to make sacrifices in certain areas of their lives in order to gain in other aspects of their lives. A hardworking career woman may be able to provide exotic holidays for the family but she may not be able to (or want to) spend as much time with her family. On the other hand, a perfect husband would help make dinner and do the washing up, but then he’d not be able to dedicate as much time to earning money. Many will come close, but no one will ever achieve the perfect balance. Everyone is different, and one woman’s idea of a fulfilled life may be different to another’s, be it her spending her days dressed in sharp suits or in jumpers covered in paint and baby food. Ola Marki, Paris

Fixed costs eat up 70 per cent of the joint income of any regular married couple. Just to be clear, this is money used to pay for a house, car and bills - and no, that’s not a Lexus, a house in Kensington and bills that include a cleaner and a gardener. Of course we are richer than any other generation ever, but that’s rather a moot point when just living is so expensive. A choice not to work? I don’t think so. A choice to be exhausted all the time and lap up extortionate housing costs and huge tax bills - that’s more like it. Name and address withheld

No one can have it all, at least not in the long term. If we don’t take care of our children to work full time we are not bringing them up; we are not giving them the love they need (and they didn’t ask us to have them). When we finally have time for them they won’t need us or want us. They will not be confident adults and will not love us as children who were raised by their mothers love theirs. Why do we have children then? To satisfy a biological or hormonal urge? Feminists should know better. Name and address withheld

If having it all means to work and have children, then yes you can. At least in Denmark, where 90 per cent or thereabouts of mothers work, most of us full time. We pay nearly half our salary in taxes, but we do have state-funded childcare, and men who, to a large degree, take most - mind you, not all - of their share of the child-caring and housework. Much as I love Britain and all things British I’m always bewildered when I read about its family policies and habits. I don’t understand why the father never seems to enter the equation. I am not saying Denmark is a paradise of equality devoid of stress - far from it. But at least it is possible to have children and work at the same time and neither I, nor any of my friends have ever considered staying at home, because we really like our jobs. And OK, we also need the money. Who doesn´t? Name and address withheld

While women agonise over when and if to have it all, I wonder how much of this wonderful, and clearly desirable “it” is left for their babies. Women working is not the issue; babies can be close to working mothers. Separation is the issue, and by policies which encourage mothers to leave their babies sooner than either would like, we are taking a risk with children’s future mental health. Name and address withheld

The space for homes is limited, therefore prices are driven up by bidding. Once we allow some women to work, all women need to work if they want a house to live in. Choice is a myth. Malcolm McLean, Bradford

I am a plastic surgeon with two children, 12 and 14. I am in practice with my husband, and our shared priority is the children. We have hired staff and worked hard to develop a schedule that allows a healthy practice, but also allows for one of us to be available for the kids after school. Too many high-level jobs demand 60 to 80 hours a week or nothing, and therein lies part of the problem. I have also come to appreciate that I could never do what I do without a supportive husband who does as much housework as I. I have been shocked to find how rare that is, but I’ve also been dismayed to find the disparaging comments many House Queens mete out to their husbands about their manly domestic efforts. Everyone wins if the home team is unified, and sons and daughters see that housework isn’t the sole domain of Mum. I’ve received many backstabs from housewives who would “never let a stranger raise her kids.” None of them seem to realise that Mum is only part of the parental equation. My working allows my children to see their dad much more often, and they are much the better for it. I would have loved to have had that gift, but I grew up in a very traditional home. Heather Furnas, Santa Rosa, California

There is an argument that it is this concept of “having it all” that has contributed in large part to the current situation. The cost of buying a home is only what it is because of the current demand of people who are prepared to pay this much for it. I don’t expect house prices would be near this level if the majority of households lived on a single income. Perhaps in the early days of this cultural transition a dual-income household would have been well-off, but as this becomes the norm, the cost of living simply rises to match the greater spending ability, thus disadvantaging those who still have only the single income to live off. Dominic Graham de Montrose, London

What is “having it all” supposed to mean? This is a clearly only a debate for affluent women/households. Women have always had to work to support their families in some capacity - whether on farms, in mines or factories or working as domestics. Only wealthy women had the option not to work and a stay-at-home housewife was historically a sign of affluence and property-owning status, except for a brief post-war period of economic expansion when the 1950s housewife reigned supreme. With the current price of housing and the cost of children’s education, we have returned to the original situation where most women both work and run households in order to keep their families on track. Only affluent households have other options. Most working women are just trying to pay the bills, as are their working husbands. Also, what about widows or divorcees? “Having it all” is not a choice for them in any sense. M. Brodie, Scotland

Old story. I could be more eloquent, but the answer has been shown to be: no, you can’t, and what’s more, get over yourself. Something’s got to give. There are too many women between 35 and 60 who have made bad decisions based on someone else’s dogmatic expectations of them as a woman. The most fulfilled women (and men) I know have managed to balance opportunity with responsibility. Jonathan Jones, London

The British workplace is still designed around the needs and wants of men (who traditionally had wives at home taking care of their personal lives). Until this changes women will continue to find it very difficult to combine work with home life. As a working mother in the City I find the macho work culture completely incompatible with motherhood. I am made to feel like a slacker if I leave work on time to pick my daughter up from nursery, even after being in the office for nine hours a day. The old-fashioned work model favours people who like to be in the office long hours - those who like to go to work to escape the pressures at home, rather than those who feel the pull towards home. Our office culture rewards presenteeism above the organisational skills women tend to excel at which allow them to finish their work in a much shorter time. Not only will women have a chance to have it all when sexism in the workplace is properly addressed, but businesses, employees and families will all benefit from a fairer, more balanced approach to office organisation. Name and address withheld

Unfortunately, the situation has got out of hand where women are obliged to go back to work to help pay for the overpriced home they live in. So while they might like to give up work, they find themselves in a spiral of obligations to all: financial to the bank; parenting to their children; and housewifely to the husband. Where do you find fulfilment in a host of obligations? This question could be posed by men, too, however. I have found fulfilment of sorts, but it took divorce to achieve it. Sarah Hague, Montpellier, France

As a chartered accountant who qualified 35 years ago I have “had it all” - with the help of a supportive husband and childcare from a live-in gran. However, an increasing problem for myself and colleagues is care of elderly relatives - this seems to be an increasing source of stress for many women, but I have yet to come across an example of any man who viewed this as being anything other than a problem to be addressed by women (with decreasing support from the NHS). Name and address withheld

Are some of these correspondents living on another planet - one where ordinary women have the opportunity to stay at home if they choose to do so, looking after their lovely children, rather than working long hours at tedious jobs? Face facts - house prices in the south of England are such that it is simply not possible for one person, on an average income, and without inherited or gifted wealth, to save up enough money to put down a deposit on a two-bedroom flat, to stand up the mortgage on that flat, and to pay the mortgage instalments - even if on an interest-only basis. Two incomes are needed, or a nice lump sum from Mummy and Daddy. The only way your average woman can stay at home, looking after her children, is if she goes on State benefits and is lucky enough to be provided with council housing. I work full time, because my partner doesn’t earn enough to keep me and our child at home. I’d far rather be at home, and have no doubt that my son would be happier if I were. I’m actually find myself seriously considering the benefits option - perhaps it’s better for a child to grow up on a grotty estate, with parents living off the State, than to have a mother who’s never there. But do we really want a society where the only people who can afford to have children, and care for them properly, are benefits claimants? And as for all these male correspondents whinging about the special benefits women supposedly have at work - guys, if you want to get ahead, work harder. It’s as simple as that. Exercising the “whinge” muscle earns you neither friends nor promotion. It just makes you look like the office loser, the one whom people avoid at the coffee machine. Name and address withheld

Gosh, this stirred some men up, didn’t it? Don’t worry, women don’t want everything - we will settle for half. It is interesting that one incentive for mothers to keep their careers going seems to have gone unmentioned. Many marriages and partnerships turn out not to be for life. Many women will have to maintain themselves and the children of the marriage/partnership out of their own earnings. (Have you read the CSA rules for child maintenance? No question of half there.) I do agree that workmates should not be expected to pick up extra burdens - we all share the benefits of a new generation, and should share the costs equitably - which means the Government picking up more of the tab. Dru Wells, Exeter

Please complete the form below and your contribution will be considered for publication. Please restrict your response to 250 words. It may be necessary to edit your comments. Please include your name, town/county/state of residence and e-mail.