Living in La-La Land?

southsiderosie

There is currently a thread in AH about commuting, which has turned into a bit of a pitched battle about work-life balance.

However, as I've gotten older, I have to wonder if young people - particularly young women - aren't being a bit delusional about this.

I know this is a gross oversimplification, but it seems like a lot of people in their 20s and 30s - women in particular - seem to think they can have the best of all worlds - corporate exec in the city! big house in the country! quality time with the kids! lots of great sex with the husband (who works 60 hours a week and has a two hour commute)! - and I think that's just unrealistic. Not to mention the fact that a surprising number of young women in their 20s declare that they plan on putting off having kids until they are in their mid to late 30s, despite the abysmal fertility statistics.

Have we - and women in particular - been sold a false bill of goods about modern work-family life?

Storminateacup

No - and frankly I don't understand the venom posted in that thread.

I think it's natural for a parent to want to do right by their children, and commuting is a sacrifice we make.

Just because we are young doesn't mean that our decisions are wrong and the older people are right.

Yahew

That thread wasn't really what it was apparently about. It was Dubliners getting upset that "boggers" don't rate their city all that much, and crying into their soup. As I pointed out here, the logic of the Dubliners position would be to move within Dublin when changing jobs.

that thread was a bit strange

anyway i did a 1.5-2 hour commute each way before and that was bad enough
never again

i've no expectations of having to own a house somewhere, country or otherwise, and i'm flexible about relocating, so i suppose i don't really get it

i imagine the work/quality time with kids can be tricky though, especially when you have mad commutes

Posy

southsiderosie wrote: »

Not to mention the fact that a surprising number of young women in their 20s declare that they plan on putting off having kids until they are in their mid to late 30s, despite the abysmal fertility statistics

Well, personally, I am putting off children until I'm at least in my mid/late thirties, stats or not! I'm currently in a fairly low paid job with odd hours, living with my folks and will probably not be financially stable, and to be honest, mature enough, to have a child for another ten years or so. I think some women do feel that they are meant to be able to juggle family/relationship/work brilliantly in this day and age and give themselves unrealistic goals to live up to sometimes.
I don't feel that I "want it all" so to speak, but I'd at least want a stable job and a roof over my head before having a child.. and it would probably help if I could look after myself first!

krudler

I dont get a massive commute, to me 2hrs commute is absolute madness, thats over 12 hrs a day consisting of work and the getting to and from it, work to live, not the other way around. either move closer or take a job somewhere else. I applied for a job in Galway recently, if I'd gotten it (or do, they're hired up but keeping me on file blah blah) I'd be moving to Galway, end of. I live in Limerick now and its just over an hours drive with ennis bypass but I still wouldnt do that twice a day every day,I like my free time thanks. its exactly 20 mins drive from my front door to work (live beside a motorway and work is just off one)

I know one girl who does the long commute thing and she spends most of her money on childminders and petrol, gets to see her kid a few mins in the morning, maybe for a while in the evening, shes basically paying someone else to enjoy all the best parts of her own childs growing up for her.

Alopex

southsiderosie wrote: »

There is currently a thread in AH about commuting, which has turned into a bit of a pitched battle about work-life balance.

However, as I've gotten older, I have to wonder if young people - particularly young women - aren't being a bit delusional about this.

I know this is a gross oversimplification, but it seems like a lot of people in their 20s and 30s - women in particular - seem to think they can have the best of all worlds - corporate exec in the city! big house in the country! quality time with the kids! lots of great sex with the husband (who works 60 hours a week and has a two hour commute)! - and I think that's just unrealistic. Not to mention the fact that a surprising number of young women in their 20s declare that they plan on putting off having kids until they are in their mid to late 30s, despite the abysmal fertility statistics.

Have we - and women in particular - been sold a false bill of goods about modern work-family life?

Due to changes in society - ie women being excluded from jobs and particularly top level jobs there is an idea that striving for top level jobs is important, if not mandatory, and being a home maker is something to almost be ashamed of

Perhaps it will swing again and people will realise being in a top level job isn't so important and being a homemaker is something to aspire to, and be proud of in itself.

Blush_01

Alopex wrote: »

Due to changes in society - ie women being excluded from jobs and particularly top level jobs there is an idea that striving for top level jobs is important, if not mandatory, and being a home maker is something to almost be ashamed of

Perhaps it will swing again and people will realise being in a top level job isn't so important and being a homemaker is something to aspire to, and be proud of in itself.

That assumes you can afford to be a homemaker.

As it stands, most professional women these days are double-jobbing, undertaking their professional work day after day, and then putting in the "homemaking" hours around everything else. I would love, in an ideal world, to have the luxury of staying at home with my kids for the first few formative years of their lives. But it's just that - a luxury. And I think that is something people forget.

KittyeeTrix

I am so grateful that I had my children at a young age and at a time when my husband worked to pay for the small mortgage we have. It meant I didn't have to go out to work and I got to stay at home for my kids growing up.
I watch friends going out to work and handing their kids over to childminders and it's heartbreaking as they'd love to stay and home and be Mums but have no choice:(

I'm out to college now and don't get home till late most evenings after leaving at 7.30am in the morning and always my youngest who is 9 rushes to hug and greet me at the door. Would have hated to leave him or the rest of them as babies!

Storminateacup

I'm just curious OP as to whether you're a parent or not?

Edit: Apparently irrelevent.
Sorry mods.

Wibbs

Storminateacup this is not the other thread, so it stands on it's own. Southsiderosie just posed a question stemming from it. I see no venom in her posts here, nor do I see any suggesting you raise your family any differently.

If anyone sees something like that, or sly digs coming here from the AH thread, please report it or PM one of the mods and we'll action it.

So can we all keep this thread general and away from the personal. Thanks.

Das Kitty

I don't think anyone male or female can have it all. I remember when I was in school thinking that I could have a highly paid job that I love and have a family and a partner who loved me and I loved.

As my life developed I realised that you make decisions as you go along about what's more important to you. More money or more time with your partner, a better job or living where you love. I've always tried to follow my heart on these decisions. In many cases I didn't realise what the most important thing to me was until I was faced with the decision.

I am currently in a decent paying job I dislike, with a family and a loving partner and a nice home in the place I love.

My decisions have shown me that the most important things in my life are: time with my family, time to myself and financial comfortableness.

I used to feel like my hatred for my job tainted everything, but once I realised the benefits it gives me and made some changes with how I deal with people, I am actually happy to have this job, and I daresay, I don't even mind coming in in the morning anymore.

atila

I would have thought the OP's post is really just a reflection of reality.

I would imagine there must be only a tiny percentage of people who imagine they can avoid the compromise faced by the vast vast majority.

Alopex

Blush_01 wrote: »

That assumes you can afford to be a homemaker.

As it stands, most professional women these days are double-jobbing, undertaking their professional work day after day, and then putting in the "homemaking" hours around everything else. I would love, in an ideal world, to have the luxury of staying at home with my kids for the first few formative years of their lives. But it's just that - a luxury. And I think that is something people forget.

I'm talking in the context of SSR's post and top level jobs. I agree with your point - but its a different issue

lazygal

Well, I'm preggers now (planned to have children once we married) and will be in my mid 30s if the kiddies we plan on having arrive in a timely fashsion! I think we're realistic about our lives, neither of us does a horrendous commute, I will probably return to work three days a week once baby arrives and maternity leave is over and we won't be doing as much splurging as before we had a family.

We are pretty sensible with money I think. We budget for holidays, nights out and the general household expenditure. Like everyone else, we've had paycuts so have simply scaled back some expenses. I'm lucky in that I've a tracker mortgage on the house we now live in which is a very good deal and we have savings set aside for a rainy day. But I know I'll have to keep working or rely on one wage, and either choice will come with consequences. It's not about expecting to have it "all", it's about realising that adult life means making decisions that lead to outcomes, and deciding which outcomes are best for you.

dearg lady

southsiderosie wrote: »

There is currently a thread in AH about commuting, which has turned into a bit of a pitched battle about work-life balance.

However, as I've gotten older, I have to wonder if young people - particularly young women - aren't being a bit delusional about this.

I know this is a gross oversimplification, but it seems like a lot of people in their 20s and 30s - women in particular - seem to think they can have the best of all worlds - corporate exec in the city! big house in the country! quality time with the kids! lots of great sex with the husband (who works 60 hours a week and has a two hour commute)! - and I think that's just unrealistic. Not to mention the fact that a surprising number of young women in their 20s declare that they plan on putting off having kids until they are in their mid to late 30s, despite the abysmal fertility statistics.

Have we - and women in particular - been sold a false bill of goods about modern work-family life?

Yeah, I do think there's a bit of truth in women being fed this line and believing it too. I always said I didn't want kids til my mid 30's, but suddenly I realise it's not that simple. It's easy to forget that it gets harder to get pregnant...until you're confronted with it in a very real way.

I read bits of the other thread, it's very interesting, seeing different peoples priorites. My preference would be for a shorter commute and more time to spend with loved ones, I HATE long commutes.

Blush_01 wrote: »

That assumes you can afford to be a homemaker.

As it stands, most professional women these days are double-jobbing, undertaking their professional work day after day, and then putting in the "homemaking" hours around everything else. I would love, in an ideal world, to have the luxury of staying at home with my kids for the first few formative years of their lives. But it's just that - a luxury. And I think that is something people forget.

I do think this is the case for many people these days but there is an awful lot of people I know for whom this isn't the case. They say they have to work, but really they are working for luxuries like nights out, holidays, new cars etc. Now that's fine, if that's what they choose, but to paint it that they have to be away from the kids irritates me, they could manage on one wage but choose not to.

southsiderosie

Blush_01 wrote: »

That assumes you can afford to be a homemaker.

As it stands, most professional women these days are double-jobbing, undertaking their professional work day after day, and then putting in the "homemaking" hours around everything else. I would love, in an ideal world, to have the luxury of staying at home with my kids for the first few formative years of their lives. But it's just that - a luxury. And I think that is something people forget.

Well, I agree and disagree.

I definitely agree about the 'double shift' that a lot of working women deal with. But there are a fair number of people out there who, if they really sat down and did the math, could afford for one parent to stay home or work part-time - especially if they are paying for child care. This would require lifestyle changes though that many people are not willing to make. That said, I know a lot of working moms who feel like having a job outside the house preserves their sanity - but fulfillment is a different issue from finances.

In addition, I think the other problem is that too many couples don't have this conversation until they are used to living in a two-income household, and have made financial commitments accordingly. Currently I am a student living on a research slave pittance and the OH is working full time. We've already decided that if/when I get a job after graduation that we are still going to operate as an essentially single-income household, so if one of us wants to work part time or stay home when the (future) kids are young, then we can. Granted, we will be living in a small apartment, but that is a tradeoff we are willing to make - and perhaps more importantly ABLE to make, since we have no large financial commitments such as a mortgage, large car notes, etc.

borderlinemeath

southsiderosie wrote: »

There is currently a thread in AH about commuting, which has turned into a bit of a pitched battle about work-life balance.

However, as I've gotten older, I have to wonder if young people - particularly young women - aren't being a bit delusional about this.

I know this is a gross oversimplification, but it seems like a lot of people in their 20s and 30s - women in particular - seem to think they can have the best of all worlds - corporate exec in the city! big house in the country! quality time with the kids! lots of great sex with the husband (who works 60 hours a week and has a two hour commute)! - and I think that's just unrealistic. Not to mention the fact that a surprising number of young women in their 20s declare that they plan on putting off having kids until they are in their mid to late 30s, despite the abysmal fertility statistics.

Have we - and women in particular - been sold a false bill of goods about modern work-family life?

I used to be like this and realised about 4 years ago when a very close relative died that "having it all" is a load of shiite. The only thing that's really important is family (and friends) the rest is all material.

I used to have a 3hr daily commute and it put years on me. Coupled with working in a fairly stressful job that could include working unpaid overtime at the drop of a hat it really wore me down. I loved my job but sometimes at the end of a long day the journey home would seem so unworthwhile just to go to bed and get up the next morning and doing it all over again.

I took a pay cut and took a job much closer to home, a 15 minute commute each way and it opened my eyes to what I was missing out on. I would hope I never have to go back to the long commute/coupled with a long working day.

By the way in relation to the other thread - I am originally from Dublin, I have nothing against living in Dublin but my OH is from Ulster so we moved to a location that was a "compatible distance" from both our families. We would never move back to the city or even closer to his family, we're really happy where we are and intend to stay put.

Ickle Magoo

I don't think it's anything to do with la-la land - and I don't think it's even a new issue. My mum was a troubleshooter headteacher and had two kids to juggle while my dad had a long commute for a few years and long days for most...she took a few years off while we were pre-school and from then on it was a constant battle to find the balance between work and home...and that's despite having a job that ran to the school holidays.

I'm very lucky, my job also runs to the school holidays and is fairly flexible so I can work within the school day as well - but on top of that I study and at the moment my husband has a long commute. It's all a fine balancing act between spending as much time with my kids as I possibly can while still fulfilling all the dreams and aspirations I had before they came on the scene. I don't see why it should ever have to be one OR the other but unfortunately the costs involve often take the choice out of parents hands.

I should also add that having a mother with her own very successful career taught me many invaluable lessons and I would much rather have had those than the archetypal home-baking mommy.

dearg lady

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think it's anything to do with la-la land - and I don't think it's even a new issue. My mum was a troubleshooter headteacher and had two kids to juggle while my dad had a long commute for a few years and long days for most...she took a few years off while we were pre-school and from then on it was a constant battle to find the balance between work and home...and that's despite having a job that ran to the school holidays.

I'm very lucky, my job also runs to the school holidays and is fairly flexible so I can work within the school day as well - but on top of that I study and at the moment my husband has a long commute. It's all a fine balancing act between spending as much time with my kids as I possibly can while still fulfilling all the dreams and aspirations I had before they came on the scene. I don't see why it should ever have to be one OR the other but unfortunately the costs involve often take the choice out of parents hands.

I should also add that having a mother with her own very successful career taught me many invaluable lessons and I would much rather have had those than the archetypal home-baking mommy.

You say it's a fine balancing act even though you work to school terms and within school hours. For the majority this isn't an option, I really don't know how they can manage.
I suppose if I were to imagine my ideal situation it would be to work part time if/when sprogs come along, but who know what turns my life might take in the meantime.

I will admit, I am someone who wants it all!

I have made choices though that help my situation, I could have had (and had a deposit on) a lovely big house in Wicklow town. But I chose to move back to Dublin, where the work was and my god was I happier for it.

We made a decision to live in close proximity to both the Dart and Luas lines so that traveling to work would be easier. Even as it stands, I'm always exhausted and don't know how on earth people manage bigger commutes!

My husband has been driving to work all week because the Darts are off. It took him an hour and a half to get home from town on Wednesday and he was wrecked by the time he got in having left the house at 7.30am. I couldn't do that on a daily basis. As it stands, I leave the house at 8.15 every morning, drop my daughter to school, get to work for 9am. Finish work at 5pm, collect my daughter and get home between 6.15-6.30, then I start making the dinner. It's tough - and it's not even that bad!!

I would love to be a stay at home mum, I would do it tomorrow, and in fairness, if we sat down and did the math and tightened our belts, I probably could do it. But what happens if my husband is suddenly out of work? We just couldn't take that risk unfortunately.

atila

Unrealistic expectations have serious consequences and cause poor life decisions. It causes people to over stretch themselves financially or tie themselves into commitments that they cannot keep. Its good to aim high but it has to be tempered with some sort of rational thought process and a degree of caution and within the bounds of whats possible.

Nowhere in our education system are we provided with some of the basic tools in decision making that would aid better life decisions. Sex education is inadequate, the basics of personal finance non existant, and religion classes are a joke in terms of how they prepare a young person for the pressures of adulthood, finally the quality of career guidence is in my experiance very very basic and without a holistic approach that should cover more then just what points will get you what at third level.

Is it any wonder then, you look around and scratch your head at some of the bizzare decisions you see grown adults take. Just in the financilal sphere alone its sometimes frightening to hear the rationale employed by otherwise intelligent people to justify real leaps of faith.

I think this ties into the discussion because some people are luckier then others in terms of their parenting or life experiance. There are vulnerable people who find themselves taking big decisions and they have never really been exposed to anything that provides them with a framework for laying out the possiblities and assessing their merit.

Ickle Magoo

dearg lady wrote: »

You say it's a fine balancing act even though you work to school terms and within school hours. For the majority this isn't an option, I really don't know how they can manage.

My job is not in the field I studied in and I chose it specifically because it ran to school terms and school hours which suited us while the kids are young...when they are older I will move to the field I really want to work in. Under normal circumstances, planning and change is always an option...I appreciate it's a recession at the moment but it's usually possible to engineer life to suit us better. :cool:

Conor Bourke

Of course I would love to have it all, but I'm very realistic about the chances of that. With regards to having children- I'm 27 and don't have a boyfriend, so unless I meet "The One" in the next few months, it's unlikely I'll be having any babas until my Mid Thirties at the earliest. Now I'm fully aware that things don't always work out just like you plan, but to paraphrase the great Pat Mustard "I'm a very careful girl, boardsies. A very careful girl". If that means that I reach my thirties and find myself unable to conceive, then so be it. I'd be lying if I said that's okay because I do hope to have children some day, but it's not the be-all and end-all of my life.

Regarding work/life balance, I've just moved to Dublin to take up what I consider a prestigious enough job (well within my field anyway). I have no interest in living back home right now, but would like to do so eventually. I have a site with full planning permission that will expire in almost three years time. I really look forward to building my wee houseen for myself but I'm adamant that it will only be done when I have a decent job at home, so that I can oversee it's building, afford to build it to the best standard I can and move straight in to it. The amount of people who can't understand why I won't throw up a house right now and rent it out so that I can say "I have a property". I'm living it up right now, doing post-grad study, working all the crazy hours in a demanding job, getting all the experience I can so that if I do have children, I won't mind scaling back on work as I hope I won't look back on my career and feel like I could've done more when I had the chance.

saa

Who actually believes they can have it all?
It's not black and white, have children or don't, have a career or don't.
Thinking of that midwife from the rte show the "commute", she didn't have a family life,
my father when we were younger gave up being a dad for commuting.
I don't look down on anyones choice to go for a career and have some kids, its fair enough imo, but the big house thing really gets me, I can't understand why someone would put themselves under so much stress for the finer things in life, when the finest thing in life is spending time with loved ones.
In many cases its not financially viable to rely on one income so I hope most people "want it all" because its the only way they can get by opposed to being greedy and trying to attain more than they should.

what do you mean "more than they should"?

Acacia

I'd be willing to commute for an hour-an-half, maybe 2 hours at a stretch ( I have done before) but it would send you a little loopy. If it's a good job though, it's worth it. For me, it's not so much the length of time it takes but the awkwardness of it all, especially with public transport outside of the major cities being so unreliable. If it's a case of getting on a bus for an hour , yeah it sucks having to be up early, but hey once you're on it, you can relax, grab a little snooze or listen to music, it's not so bad if it takes you from A to B. I find it's the switching from the bus to the train to the Luas, or whatever, that is really head-wrecking. Trying to sync up the different timetables, etc is an absolute nightmare.

I've always maintained that I didn't need massive amounts of money to be happy. In the furture, if I had kids, if spending time with my family meant taking a less well-paid job then I'd do it. But for now, I'm willing to go out of my way if it means getting a good job. With so much competition from other unemployed graduates, I just can't afford to be very picky about where I work and the commute it might take.

Stheno

I commuted since 200 until this year between 80 and 120 miles a day, took 2-3 hours a day.

For the last three I could drive which relaxed me as I enjoy driving.

I don't have kids, and have never wanted them, and in my current job usually commute an hour each way on the bus if I'm in the office, but I travel regularly and can spend up to four hours a day in the car if I'm offsite.

I never bought into the "having it all" dream, partly as I never wanted kids, and partly due to working in a male dominated profession involving travelling and seeing male colleagues ringing home evenings and mornings to check in with their kids, catch up on sports days, piano exams etc

Imo unless you can afford live in childcare, and earn a very high salary you can't have it all. You need to make a choice, I'm happy with mine, but have a lifestyle a lot of people would be put off by, working 60-70 hours a week, often changing personal arrangements to suit work etc. That's my choice and I enjoy it and find it fulfilling, but a lot of people would hate it, both male and female.

dearg lady

dearg lady wrote: »

there is an awful lot of people I know for whom this isn't the case. They say they have to work, but really they are working for luxuries like nights out, holidays, new cars etc. Now that's fine, if that's what they choose, but to paint it that they have to be away from the kids irritates me, they could manage on one wage but choose not to.

This is so true. I worked with a few women who were very defensive about working and claimed that staying at home was a luxury and that they had no choice. Complete bullsh*t. They all had their hair done every 2 weeks, regular manicures, regular holidays, 2 top of the range cars, designer handbags, designer clothes for the babby, including baby Converse and baby Uggs. There was no way in hell they 'needed' to work. Cutting back on the luxuries alone would have saved them all about a grand a month. The truth is, a lot of people are spoiled and think you need all these extras to live. My mother stayed at home with three kids while my dad was an average salary. We wore second hand clothes, had cloth nappies, took the bus everywhere. She thought it was worth it, and I agree. I'd have hated to have been brought up by a nanny so we could go to Tenerife once a year and have a BMW. She did go back to work when we were a bit older and we had more 'stuff' but TBH, I preferred having her around. Unless you'd otherwise be living in poverty, massive commutes just aren't worth it.

mrsdewinter

Well, I'd *love* to meet one of these women who has it all. I'm childless (not by choice, but I spent my 20s and, currently, my 30s no, not quaffing cocktails or spending my wages on designer handbags but, you know, working, and buying a flat) but anybody I know who has children also has to go out to work. And every one of those women seems to be pretty much dragging the devil by the tail. Their holidays are taken in Wales, or Brittas Bay, or at their mother's house. Their handbags are from Dunnes or - as a particular treat - from Warehouse. If I feel cheated because I bought into the myth of concentrating on my 'career' until my mid-thirties, I think my colleagues who are parents are entitled to be a little miffed if 'having it all' ain't all it's cracked up to be.

convert

krudler wrote: »

I dont get a massive commute, to me 2hrs commute is absolute madness, thats over 12 hrs a day consisting of work and the getting to and from it, work to live, not the other way around. either move closer or take a job somewhere else.

I do a 2 hour commute each way every day. My job doesn't pay well enough for me to move to Dublin and pay exorbitant rents for a pokey apartment or room in a house sharing with strangers. However, spending less than 200 euro per month on transport means that I can live in a 3 bed house with a huge garden, so for the time being I'm happy enough with the commute. The job isn't a long-term contract, but with the way things are at the moment economically it would be madness to spend all my income on rent if I can commute and therefore in a position to save for a deposit on a house.

Oh, and in response to your last comment, there are no jobs near where I live (well, ones in my field, anyway), so to suggest that I should take a job closer to where I live is crazy.

I don't have kids (by choice), and I don't plan on having any until my mid to late 30s, if, in fact, ever. They don't necessarily fit into my 'having it all' plans. Yes, I know that this may seem strange to some, especially if, like a friend of mine, you want to be married by 30 and have your first child within a year of your marriage, but that just isn't for me. I would never have kids if I wasn't in a financial position to do so, or have a permanent and secure job (difficult in this economic climate, I know) and live in a location where my husband and I and the children would be happy and actually be able to see each other all the time.

For me, my 'having it all' plan is to have a good job that I enjoy, have the time to enjoy the recreational activities that my OH and I take part in, and be healthy and happy. Of course I'd like the 'big house' and top-class car, but once my OH and I are healthy and happy and in jobs that we don't dislike (and I know a lot of people who are stuck in jobs they hate, but feel trapped and unable to move), and are in a position to pay the bills, then I will be happy, and 'have it all'.

However, it's also worth remembering that the whole notion of 'having it all' is really a personal choice, and what makes one person happy would not suit somebody else, and therefore I don't think it's fair to say that anyone has been sold a false notion of what 'having it all' actually is.

Zaylee Colossal Weekend

Zaylee Colossal Weekend wrote: »

This is so true. I worked with a few women who were very defensive about working and claimed that staying at home was a luxury and that they had no choice. Complete bullsh*t. They all had their hair done every 2 weeks, regular manicures, regular holidays, 2 top of the range cars, designer handbags, designer clothes for the babby, including baby Converse and baby Uggs. There was no way in hell they 'needed' to work. Cutting back on the luxuries alone would have saved them all about a grand a month. The truth is, a lot of people are spoiled and think you need all these extras to live. My mother stayed at home with three kids while my dad was an average salary. We wore second hand clothes, had cloth nappies, took the bus everywhere. She thought it was worth it, and I agree. I'd have hated to have been brought up by a nanny so we could go to Tenerife once a year and have a BMW. She did go back to work when we were a bit older and we had more 'stuff' but TBH, I preferred having her around. Unless you'd otherwise be living in poverty, massive commutes just aren't worth it.

That's your opinion and choice though and that's fine. You can't look down on other people for doing it differently. There seems to be a lot of anger in your post.

parker kent

mrsdewinter wrote: »

Their handbags are from Dunnes or - as a particular treat - from Warehouse.

Heavens no :eek:

The idea of "having it all" surely varies from person to person? Let people do whatever keeps them happy. I'd only have an issue if somebody was living a lifestyle that they hated when a happier alternative existed.

southsiderosie

parker kent wrote: »

Heavens no :eek:

The idea of "having it all" surely varies from person to person? Let people do whatever keeps them happy. I'd only have an issue if somebody was living a lifestyle that they hated when a happier alternative existed.

But I think the latter is what comes up time and time again. People hate commuting or they hate their job or they hate being away from their kids, but are unwilling to make the time, monetary, or personal sacrifices necessary to change the situation. And to go back to the 'having it all' fallacy, I think a lot of women - in particular, those who are highly skilled - would face not only monetary but social pressure to keep working full time, even though they would rather be at home with their babies.

I also wonder about the flip side to this - is there a male equivalent to 'having it all'? It seems like we just expect men to shut up and put in the hours, even though from what I've seen, a lot of younger men would like to be able to take more time off, or have a more flexible work schedule in order to spend more time with their families. I honestly don't know, but I would be interested in a male perspective on this.

Yahew

I think most people in midde income groups realise they can have two of these three.

1)Good/Big House/ School ( or good area).
2) No Commute
3) Good job prospects.

But not all three, and the debate is about which two you choose. No commute and a cosy flat makes sense for singletons, a better house or school and a commute makes sense later in life.

southsiderosie

Yahew wrote: »

I think most people in midde income groups realise they can have two of these three.

1)Good/Big House/ School ( or good area).
2) No Commute
3) Good job prospects.

But not all three, and the debate is about which two you choose. No commute and a cosy flat makes sense for singletons, a better house or school and a commute makes sense later in life.

That's actually a really useful way to think about it. It's like the "Unholy Trinity", escept for work-life balance, not trade policy :P.

Squall19

Is this show on Rte Player or some other site>

Would like to see it.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

That's your opinion and choice though and that's fine. You can't look down on other people for doing it differently. There seems to be a lot of anger in your post.

Obviously it's my opinion. I'm posting on an internet forum. And it's really tiresome when people say you're angry when you've written something they don't agree with.

I really am not that bothered about the topic. I just got sick to death of people who were, frankly, deluded, making excuses to themselves about why they had to work. There's nothing wrong with being a mother and wanting to work. I'm talking about the 'woe is me, I miss my kids, but I don't have a choice' types, who in the next breath discussed their girly shopping trips to New York and the new Uggs they'd just bought for their seven-year-old. The point is, they did have a choice. They chose the fancy lifestyle. If they'd given up half their luxuries, they could have afforded to stay at home. It just irks me when people are that deluded and think they're fooling anyone but themselves. It's like the more they go on about it, the more true it will become.

Anyway, back to the topic, I think t's impossible to 'have it all', which to most people means the high-flying job, the family, the social life. There are only so many hours in a day. The pressure on women to be some sort of superhuman being is insane.

Zaylee Colossal Weekend

Zaylee Colossal Weekend wrote: »

Obviously it's my opinion. I'm posting on an internet forum. And it's really tiresome when people say you're angry when you've written something they don't agree with.
.

It's nothing to do with me not agreeing, I don't agree with alot of people on boards. But you are coming across with a bit of an attitude on the subject.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It's nothing to do with me not agreeing, I don't agree with alot of people on boards. But you are coming across with a bit of an attitude on the subject.

I think women like that are really annoying and can be dangerous because they perpetuate the idea that you 'have' to work these days and that nobody can ever possibly survive on one salary. They brush off any suggestion of cutting back on luxuries as unrealistic or insane and keep repeating how expensive everything is. I have nothing against women choosing the fancy lifestyle if they want it, I just get irritated with the delusion and the 'poor me, I have to do it all' attitude. I was really just agreeing with dearg lady and elaborating.

Stheno

southsiderosie wrote: »

But I think the latter is what comes up time and time again. People hate commuting or they hate their job or they hate being away from their kids, but are unwilling to make the time, monetary, or personal sacrifices necessary to change the situation. And to go back to the 'having it all' fallacy, I think a lot of women - in particular, those who are highly skilled - would face not only monetary but social pressure to keep working full time, even though they would rather be at home with their babies.

I also wonder about the flip side to this - is there a male equivalent to 'having it all'? It seems like we just expect men to shut up and put in the hours, even though from what I've seen, a lot of younger men would like to be able to take more time off, or have a more flexible work schedule in order to spend more time with their families. I honestly don't know, but I would be interested in a male perspective on this.

From my experience with male colleagues and as I've posted earlier there is. There appears to be a greater pressure to provide, yet little recognition of their role as parents, and they juggle the two as best they can.

One huge multinational that I worked in had a support forum for women in consulting but nothing for men in consulting, yet the gripes in the forum about travel and the affect on family life could have been non gender.

LegacyUser

I will never understand those who commute for hours every day just to keep a well-paid job.

My husband doesn't earn very much, but I have quit my job to raise our children.

We will cut back and back on our spending, rather than have our children in creches etc.

We have no car, let alone cars....we buy very little for our children, just what they need. I cook dinner every day and we have no holidays planned until at least 5 years.

If all that sounds bad, it is not. When I see my boys faces every morning, knowing I can spend the entire day with them, it is all worthwhile.

Money comes and money goes, but these years come only once and will be gone forever.

On his way to work last week, my husband passed a creche worked pushing a beaming little girl in a buggy in the sunshine. The other creche worker said "is yours asleep yet?"

It's a sad society out there, but you don't have to be part of it. There are other ways.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

wicklori

Well I'm really interested to read that other people are having these discussions and not just us!! We just got married, and I am 33 and I want to have kids, as does OH. No judgement of anyone who chooses otherwise, that's us.

My commute is 1 hour 50 minutes, his is 1 hour (in the opposite direction). We don't own our house, but it is relatively near to my parents and we have a reasonable network of friends there.

My question is-what do we do!! His job is very very specific and changing job is just not an option. He also earns a lot more than me and works massive hours, on top of his commute. I get the train to work, driving takes even longer!

Have I looked for work closer to home or his job- of course! There just isn't any! But if I were to get pregnant in the morning I have no idea how I could manage! If any one is in the business of magic wands-let me know!!

borderlinemeath

There's always a way to change your lifestyle. It might not be financially viable but it's always doable.

When I get a bit envious when I hear of friends heading off on their weekends away at fancy spa hotels and foreign holidays - I always think of this little fable...while I'm financially poorer - I'm far happier than when I was a slave to commuting.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=philosophers%2Bstory%2Bjar%2Bof%2Brocks&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCgQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Facademictips.org%2Fblogs%2Fmoral-tale-the-important-things-in-life%2F&ei=-_23To_eD4rIhAfG6aipBA&usg=AFQjCNF6cOGrxoynGXoXRSNvPcPVazNBwg

sambuka41

convert wrote: »

However, it's also worth remembering that the whole notion of 'having it all' is really a personal choice, and what makes one person happy would not suit somebody else, and therefore I don't think it's fair to say that anyone has been sold a false notion of what 'having it all' actually is.

I this sums it up, it is a very individual. I have spent 5 years studying and I have 3 more years to go before Im finished,and thats not including the years of working in between studying; it would be madness for me to quit if I have kids. At the moment I don't have kids, i'm 29 and still have my PHD to do so I dont see myself having any for a while. But if I do decide to have children, I plan to 'have it all'.

I think it really depends what stage you are at in life, at different times its easier to do the work/kids/commute thing. Like in general commuting is easier when you are younger, but the kids/work balance is easier when you are older and more established in your career; when you aren't working as hard to prove yourself or build up a good work history.

At the end of the day its more important that you are happy, as a woman as well as a mother. The staying at home is not for me, I wouldn't pretend otherwise, I would work because I want to (and realistically have to). I think there is pressure on women that if they were to express that it means somehow that they aren't good mothers or don't want to be good mothers. So they work and they say its purely for financial reasons.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree that the rates will probably go down, but I think it will be due to a combination of economic feasibility versus maintaining one's sanity. There was an interesting study a few years ago comparing fertility rates across continental Europe, and some of the difference was explained by the fact that the fertility rate tended to plummet in places where women entered university and the workplace in large numbers, but there were no changes in cultural expectations about housework, or state support for maternity leave, child care, etc. I will see if I can dig this up.

Also, just to go back to some of the earlier points, the ideas about what is 'economically feasible' have changed over time. People today have higher expectations about disposable income, lifestyle, etc than our parents did. I don't want to downplay the role that structural economic changes have had on household income (a high school educated man could support a wife and three kids on a single income in the early 1970s, and that is simply not the case anymore), but I also think that the longer people wait to have kids, the more disruptive having them can be to one's personal life and established spending habits - particularly among highly educated women.

Sleepy

I honestly wonder what the average salary of the 'can't afford not to work' women must be... with two kids to pay childcare for were my other half working, we'd be worse off financially!

Yahew

Why is childcare so expensive?

southsiderosie

Yahew wrote: »

Why is childcare so expensive?

Even if you were to pay someone cash-in-hand $10 an hour to watch your children (i.e about as much as a brain-dead teenager gets paid to work in a retail outlet), childcare can still cost about the same as a mortgage:

($10/hr * 9 hours) * 5 = $450/week * 4 = $1800/month

Hence why in the US a huge number of nannies are immigrant women working off the books.

Yahew

It scales up though. If you go to a creche, and the cost is €10 per hour per child, then for 5 children earnings are €50 per hour. That's €400 per day, or €100K per year with two weeks off ( more than teachers, and probably more than the household needing the child care). If you can handle ten children it would scale to €200k.

I'm wondering why there is not more competition bringing this number down, since it is not a very skilled job. ( It might be a case of trust - i.e. if the creche is only €20 a day, parents assume the worst).