Francis Holland head says "you can't have it all" Post Reply

[Wheresmyschool?]

Vivienne Durham, head teacher at independent girls’ school Francis Holland Regent’s Park, has come under fire for telling Absolute Education magazine that we need to stop lying to young girls about their future. In an interview with the magazine, Durham says that women cannot have it all and that telling girls they should be aiming for both a successful career and a family is setting them up for failure. And of course, she had a point.

http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-lea ... nne-durham

[BFW]

I read this article at the weekend and it made my blood boil.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... -head.html

Is it tough juggling a career and a family? YES it is. But telling girls to give up before they have even started is in my view telling them that things will never change and they just have to accept it.

Things do change - 10 years I didn't know anyone who worked part time in the city. Now I know plenty of successful women that work part-time in lots of different industries and have very happy families. I also know a few families where the husband stays at home and is in charge of children and running the house and the wife is the breadwinner.

And why shouldn't "stay at home" mums be considered successful ?

Its all about choice and I want my daughter to grow up believing that she can have it all if that is what she wants !

So demoralising that in 2015 someone would want to install these short sighted beliefs in young girls.

[this_is_cat]

When boys are told they can't have it all, then we can start telling girls the same.
Until then, it is nothing more than sexist claptrap

[Goldhawk]

Agree with what this_is_cat said

Sounds like it's good news that Mrs Durham is retiring
I certainly wouldn't want to send my daughter to a girl's school where the head is not a feminist

[AbbevilleMummy]

I also agree with this-is-cat's point.

However, I also agree that it is important to tell our girls they they shouldn't put pressure on themselves to 'have it all' all in one go. And by that I mean, we shouldn't be expecting them to be superwoman. I genuinely believe that it is impossible to be incredibly successful in your career, be an amazing attentive mum, have an imalculate house AND be happy all in the same month!

Some months or years they should focus on their careers, some on their kids/family and then back again; and always outsource the housework!

[millymoo]

I don't think society should expect women to be superhuman but I do think it is depressing and demoralising for girls to think that they can't have whatever they want at such an early age. Agree with the previous poster who said she wouldn't send her daughter to a school where the head wasn't a feminist. It doesn't sound like Vivienne is an inspirational leader and she probably wanted to say something controversial before retiring and writing a book on how we should be raising girls in the 21st century.

[AbbevilleMummy]

I agree with you Millymoo on your guess as to her motives. And that really is depressing. Also as an educator, what is she trying to achieve by making these comments?? If you want to have kids one day in the future, don't bother trying your best in school in order to get a good career?

[supergirl]

Why do we need to talk to them about that???? I think this statement is outdated and I am certainly not telling my children that. I tell them that they can do anything they want if they want to and work hard for it, end of.

I have spent half term with my 2 daughters and my niece who is 16 and not at any time did my niece talked or asked or was remotely interested in the " can I have it all? What happens if i want/have a family".

The only things that were worthy of interests (i say that in lighthearted way as I adore her and all teenagers for that matter) of my niece were: the next 2 years and her exams, getting into her first choice uni, her friends and how cool she looks (and going to topshop ).

She is convinced she'll managed the first 2 (and she works hard) and spends a good amount of her free time doing the others.

I am totally convinced that she will have the tools, background and maturity to make the decisions she will need to make as she grows up and she ll be totally ready for anything when family come her way.

To me this IS feminism.

[Wheresmyschool?]

And now Masterchef has waded in, from the Telegraph

Not enough female chefs are making it to the top of the profession, because women are not prepared to put a career in the kitchen above having a family, MasterChef presenter Monica Galetti has said.

"I’ve seen many amazing chefs, girls, come into the kitchen and then give it up to be with their boyfriend. Would he do that for her?”

Monica Galetti, MasterChef host

Ms Galetti, who quit her job at top London restaurant Le Gavroche earlier this year, said that there was no gender bias in professional kitchens, but that when it came to forging a career as a top chef, women have “to put it first to do well”.

Speaking ahead of the new series of MasterChef: The Professionals, which returns to the BBC next week, Ms Galetti said that more women were beginning to enter the profession, and that “in the kitchen we’re all equals – once you’ve got a jacket on, you’re a chef. It’s not about gender –

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/119 ... areer.html

Thanks for that, lets tell everyone they can't have it all and soon they'll all believe us.

Idiots.

[juliantenniscoach]

Daring to tread my little feet into this discussion, I would say there's another side that so far has been dismissed. If you read the Guardian then the Telegraph on the same subject they take very different angles with the Telegraph printing more direct quotes.

I know many professionally skilled women who once they have had children, changed their priorities by choice. As parents, we all change hormonally don't we?

I think the mother who decides to raise her children rather than forge on with her career is often dismissed as 'given up'. It's not really fair to make that judgement. If one assumes there is a partner, then if the partner it makes perfect sense. I want my children to have one of their parents as the person responsible for raising them, not a carer, however skilled they may be.

I also know a few families where the father has adopted the role of main carer whilst the mother returns to the workplace. In all the cases this is an economic choice.

I do feel sorry for mothers who have no choice but to return to the workplace for financial considerations, because as we all know, this is an expensive city to bring up children, pay the bills, try to get ahead.

My daughters are 8yrs and 6 yrs and of course encourage them to try everything and in time will try to help them with their ambitions. Of course a glass ceiling still exists but I believe logistics and economics play a big role in this. It's too simplistic to say it's all because of sexism.

I've been reading the Swedish experiment on 6 hour working days which might, might be a practical solution or part solution. It is too early for raw data to be translated into coherent results. Here's the link:- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 74646.html

[juliantenniscoach]

Daring to tread my little feet into this discussion, I would say there's another side that so far has been dismissed. If you read the Guardian then the Telegraph on the same subject they take very different angles with the Telegraph printing more direct quotes.

I know many professionally skilled women who once they have had children, changed their priorities by choice. As parents, we all change hormonally don't we?

I think the mother who decides to raise her children rather than forge on with her career is often dismissed as 'given up'. It's not really fair to make that judgement. If one assumes there is a partner, then if the partner earns more money it makes perfect sense. I want my children to have one of their parents as the person responsible for raising them, not a carer, however skilled they may be.

I also know a few families where the father has adopted the role of main carer whilst the mother returns to the workplace. In all the cases this is an economic choice.

I do feel sorry for mothers who have no choice but to return to the workplace for financial considerations, because as we all know, this is an expensive city to bring up children, pay the bills, try to get ahead.

My daughters are 8yrs and 6 yrs and of course encourage them to try everything and in time will try to help them with their ambitions. Of course a glass ceiling still exists but I believe logistics and economics play a big role in this. It's too simplistic to say it's all because of sexism.

I've been reading the Swedish experiment on 6 hour working days which might, might be a practical solution or part solution. It is too early for raw data to be translated into coherent results. Here's the link:- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 74646.html

[millymoo]

Thanks for joining the debate Julian - I am curious about what you mean on the economic benefits of women leaving the workforce. The fact is women are still paid less than men for doing the same job in many industries. This is particularly true post maternity leave so until we have full transparency on whether salary is completely gender neutral women may feel it is a better option to stay and raise a family. There aren't many things I agree with this government on but forcing large employers to disclose how many women they have in senior management positions and whether they are as equally compensated as their male counterparts is a move forward.

[juliantenniscoach]

Hi Milly, perhaps I didn't explain myself properly. Were you referring to this paragraph?

"I also know a few families where the father has adopted the role of main carer whilst the mother returns to the workplace. In all the cases this is an economic choice."

If not then can you let me know and I'll try to explain it? Thanks.

[millymoo]

Sorry I was referring to the point about the glass ceiling - if it is an economic reason why women leave the workforce then that should be fixed so that they can make a balanced choice for their family.

[juliantenniscoach]

Oh I see. Ok let me try and explain. I think that in many cases the costs of childcare v the net income of working can be marginal. I'm not talking about the big city jobs which always dominate this argument, but regular jobs paying sub £50,000 for example (still a good income against the national average clearly).

Our state provision for childcare doesn't meet the employers need which then places the burden of cost onto the family. Again I'm not saying sexism doesn't exist, of course it does. However I do think the maths for many families don't add up for returning to work.

I hope that makes more sense?