Is it me or does it feel like this school term has flown by in a matter of minutes? The weather doesn't help; I don't feel like we've actually turned the corner yet, am still waiting for the day that I feel that yes, now I can finally pack away all the coats for a few months. But actually I think it's the relentless routine, the frantic mornings, the urgent deadlines, work crammed into the hours available, then home, sleep, and it all starts again.
But that wasn't the point of this blog post. No, my subject du jour is End of Term, and what I mean by that is all the lovely events that herald this date. Sports day. School production. Things you don't want to miss, things that you want to record, and play for your squirming child when they have reached the grand old age of eighteen.
But can you make it? What if you do manage to book a day off, then it rains and it's rearranged for a day when you're presenting something important and can't get away? Will your child grow up angry and withdrawn if you fail to make it to anything, or are we actually heaping way too much pressure on ourselves to make every single thing? How many of you are brave enough to give your child a kiss, tell them that they'll be brilliant but that mummy has a meeting she can't miss, and wave them off? And is that child going to be more or less resilient, more or less attention seeking than the child who's parents attend every single thing they're in?
I mean, hey, don't listen to me, because I'm the one who moves heaven and earth and goes to EVERYTHING. But, actually, last year I didn't make sports day. Not because of work, but because my youngest saw fit to throw himself back on his new high chair (since binned), which wasn't massively stable and propelled him backwards so he smacked down on the tiled floor. Not a great thing to happen at 7.30am. Fortunately he was fine, but I had to take him to A&E just in case, which meant no one to cheer on my eldest as he competed in... well, whatever he competed in. I wasn't there, remember?
And did he care? Does he even remember now? No, he doesn't.
There's a moral in there somewhere.
But in the meantime, I've got a calendar to organise...
Friday 28 June 2013
Wednesday 19 June 2013
Feminism? Has it become a dirty word?
So I was reading The Times at the weekend and read an interview with Annabel Karmel, she of the hugely successful baby food empire, and she said that she wasn't a feminist. Not a feminist? How? Why?
It got me thinking. Because if she, head of a huge business, is 'not a feminist' (in spite of the fact that, if it wasn't for feminism, she would never have been allowed to trouble herself with complicated things like supply chains and growth strategies), then either she believes feminism isn't needed anymore, or it's become such a dirty word she doesn't want to be associated with it.
Which is tragic because feminism is so totally needed and it shouldn't be a dirty word, but somehow it's become associated with anti-men lobbies, with strident militarism, with anger and vitriol. When really, surely, feminism is about equal opportunities. I have two boys and one girl, and I have the same hopes and aspirations for them all: happiness, love a fulfilling career. Only fifty years ago, women were forced to give up their jobs when they got married. For years afterwards a woman couldn't get a mortgage without a man to guarantee it. Sure, there are women in boardrooms now, and women politicians. But old habits die hard and few workplaces have yet completely thrown off their all-male legacies; late night working is still lauded, and nights out at strip joints are still acceptable so long as clients are there.
The trouble is, we disagree on what the problems are and we also disagree on the solutions. On the one hand, I welcome extended maternity leave and flexible working for mothers. On the other hand, I can see the huge burden this puts on businesses (particularly small to medium size businesses) and how employers might start to favour male workers. In the States, where maternity leave tends to be around 3 months, there are more women in senior positions; in European countries where up to 2 years maternity leave is available, hardly any women work in the private sector, and the vast majority work part time. Is this progress? I'm really not sure.
Equal opportunities are, of course, now enshrined in law, but it's society that really dictates what is acceptable. Women who work full pelt are lauded in the media but pitied at the same time; they must miss their children, their children must be missing out too. Nannies are discussed with raised eyebrows and high profile celebrities talk with pride about how they look after their own children, not mentioning the grandmother, housekeeper and tutors working full time behind the scenes to raise their children when they are on a film set 12 hours a day.
The reality is, there's no silver bullet. But that's because we are all different and want different things. Some women are desperate to get back to work a few months after giving birth; some fear the end of their maternity leave and start working out how quickly they need to get pregnant in order to minimise the time back in the office. But, and here's the real point of what I'm trying to say here, SO DO MEN, and this is where the revolution really has a chance of taking hold.
It's happening very, very gradually, but bit by bit, fathers can be seen pushing buggies around on a weekday; one by one they are appearing on the school run, slowing their careers right down so they can look after the children whilst their wives work full time. Usually it's down to economics; the highest earner continues earning whilst the lower earner does more child care. But sometimes it's just down to choice. Because not every woman enjoys domesticity, and not all men want to work full pelt and see their children only at weekends.
And the more men who make the choice to stay at home, the more it will become acceptable (and more fun for them, probably), the more future generations will have a genuine choice over who, if anyone, stays at home and what their childcare arrangements will look like. That is true equality of opportunity. That is surely the win win that we all want?
Once we can start seeing people as people instead of stereotypes, then true equality has a chance; once the government understands that it isn't always women who want to stay at home with the baby, once men start feeling they have a genuine choice in the matter, then I will relax.
Until then, I am very proud to say that I am a feminist.
It got me thinking. Because if she, head of a huge business, is 'not a feminist' (in spite of the fact that, if it wasn't for feminism, she would never have been allowed to trouble herself with complicated things like supply chains and growth strategies), then either she believes feminism isn't needed anymore, or it's become such a dirty word she doesn't want to be associated with it.
Which is tragic because feminism is so totally needed and it shouldn't be a dirty word, but somehow it's become associated with anti-men lobbies, with strident militarism, with anger and vitriol. When really, surely, feminism is about equal opportunities. I have two boys and one girl, and I have the same hopes and aspirations for them all: happiness, love a fulfilling career. Only fifty years ago, women were forced to give up their jobs when they got married. For years afterwards a woman couldn't get a mortgage without a man to guarantee it. Sure, there are women in boardrooms now, and women politicians. But old habits die hard and few workplaces have yet completely thrown off their all-male legacies; late night working is still lauded, and nights out at strip joints are still acceptable so long as clients are there.
The trouble is, we disagree on what the problems are and we also disagree on the solutions. On the one hand, I welcome extended maternity leave and flexible working for mothers. On the other hand, I can see the huge burden this puts on businesses (particularly small to medium size businesses) and how employers might start to favour male workers. In the States, where maternity leave tends to be around 3 months, there are more women in senior positions; in European countries where up to 2 years maternity leave is available, hardly any women work in the private sector, and the vast majority work part time. Is this progress? I'm really not sure.
Equal opportunities are, of course, now enshrined in law, but it's society that really dictates what is acceptable. Women who work full pelt are lauded in the media but pitied at the same time; they must miss their children, their children must be missing out too. Nannies are discussed with raised eyebrows and high profile celebrities talk with pride about how they look after their own children, not mentioning the grandmother, housekeeper and tutors working full time behind the scenes to raise their children when they are on a film set 12 hours a day.
The reality is, there's no silver bullet. But that's because we are all different and want different things. Some women are desperate to get back to work a few months after giving birth; some fear the end of their maternity leave and start working out how quickly they need to get pregnant in order to minimise the time back in the office. But, and here's the real point of what I'm trying to say here, SO DO MEN, and this is where the revolution really has a chance of taking hold.
It's happening very, very gradually, but bit by bit, fathers can be seen pushing buggies around on a weekday; one by one they are appearing on the school run, slowing their careers right down so they can look after the children whilst their wives work full time. Usually it's down to economics; the highest earner continues earning whilst the lower earner does more child care. But sometimes it's just down to choice. Because not every woman enjoys domesticity, and not all men want to work full pelt and see their children only at weekends.
And the more men who make the choice to stay at home, the more it will become acceptable (and more fun for them, probably), the more future generations will have a genuine choice over who, if anyone, stays at home and what their childcare arrangements will look like. That is true equality of opportunity. That is surely the win win that we all want?
Once we can start seeing people as people instead of stereotypes, then true equality has a chance; once the government understands that it isn't always women who want to stay at home with the baby, once men start feeling they have a genuine choice in the matter, then I will relax.
Until then, I am very proud to say that I am a feminist.
Thursday 13 June 2013
One child policy?
So according to the journalist and author Lauren Sandler, writers should stick to one child if they don't want to limit their careers.
Actually, that's a bit disingenuous. She didn't write exactly that in The Atlantic, but the headline ('The secret to being both a successful writer and a mother: have just one kid') made out that she did and she certainly spoke in reverential terms about writers who all had just one child.
Really? I mean... really?
Sure, the fewer distractions you have, perhaps the more energy you have to throw into your work - whether that's writing books or running your country. And when you're struggling to get three young children into a car/along the road/anywhere, frankly, mothers walking serenely down the road with one perfectly behaved child can look, well, appealing.
But one child can require way more input than two. They need playdates, they need input, they need activities. Two or three children just need a blanket to make a den and they're off. We have just installed a trampoline in our garden. Our three children bounce themselves stupid for hours at a time, throwing balls to one another, taking it turns to lie flat whilst the others bounce them up and down (please don't tell the health and safety police). If we had just one, I guarantee I'd be out there a whole lot more bouncing with them, playing the games that my three make up as they go along.
My head sometimes spins from the 'To Do' list that three young children entails. And I know as they get older, and life becomes more serious for them, I will be needed more and more to help with big decisions, to listen to their worries, to steer, and guide and sometimes lay down the law (no, you are not going to a house party you read about on facebook...). But that doesn't preclude having space in my head for work, too. Nor does it reduce my ambition. Not remotely.
Actually, it does the opposite. Shopping for three children is eye-wateringly expensive. Talking of which, I'd better get on with some work right now...
Actually, that's a bit disingenuous. She didn't write exactly that in The Atlantic, but the headline ('The secret to being both a successful writer and a mother: have just one kid') made out that she did and she certainly spoke in reverential terms about writers who all had just one child.
Really? I mean... really?
Sure, the fewer distractions you have, perhaps the more energy you have to throw into your work - whether that's writing books or running your country. And when you're struggling to get three young children into a car/along the road/anywhere, frankly, mothers walking serenely down the road with one perfectly behaved child can look, well, appealing.
But one child can require way more input than two. They need playdates, they need input, they need activities. Two or three children just need a blanket to make a den and they're off. We have just installed a trampoline in our garden. Our three children bounce themselves stupid for hours at a time, throwing balls to one another, taking it turns to lie flat whilst the others bounce them up and down (please don't tell the health and safety police). If we had just one, I guarantee I'd be out there a whole lot more bouncing with them, playing the games that my three make up as they go along.
My head sometimes spins from the 'To Do' list that three young children entails. And I know as they get older, and life becomes more serious for them, I will be needed more and more to help with big decisions, to listen to their worries, to steer, and guide and sometimes lay down the law (no, you are not going to a house party you read about on facebook...). But that doesn't preclude having space in my head for work, too. Nor does it reduce my ambition. Not remotely.
Actually, it does the opposite. Shopping for three children is eye-wateringly expensive. Talking of which, I'd better get on with some work right now...
Wednesday 5 June 2013
Like we need our paranoia fed any more...
So now the latest news is that pregnant women should 'avoid' food in plastic containers in case it could harm their baby. And avoid moisturiser, shower gel, household cleaning products, make up and new furniture. Of course that's in addition to not eating cheese, drinking alcohol and all the myriad other rules imposed.
This latest advice comes from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. They admit that there is 'considerable uncertainty' surrounding the risks of chemical exposure, but say that women should take a 'safety first' approach, which is to 'assume there is a risk present even when it may be minimal or eventually unfounded'.
So, just to be clear, then, that means not eating vegetables that have been packed in plastic containers, not taking a sandwich to work in tupperware, not buying a new cot for the nursery, not moisturising your bump (or your face), not wearing deoderant when you're sweltering in the sun and carrying a little heat creator inside you, not wearing sunscreen... all because there may possibly be a minimal risk to your baby, maybe?
Pregnancy is hard enough without 'helpful' advice like this. And the trouble is, what starts as advice ends up as dogma. And this approach isn't taken with anything except pregnancy. Links have been mooted/substantiated between all sorts of things and devastating illnesses. Sugar, car fumes, hydrogenated fat, food colourings, pesticides. But are we told to avoid them just in case? No, we're told that without any firm evidence, we should just keep calm and carry on.
I totally get that creating life is important and that genuine threats need to be shouted from the rooftops. But advice like this, making women feel guilty if they so much as rub their face with a bit of Nivea?
Really not helpful at all.
This latest advice comes from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. They admit that there is 'considerable uncertainty' surrounding the risks of chemical exposure, but say that women should take a 'safety first' approach, which is to 'assume there is a risk present even when it may be minimal or eventually unfounded'.
So, just to be clear, then, that means not eating vegetables that have been packed in plastic containers, not taking a sandwich to work in tupperware, not buying a new cot for the nursery, not moisturising your bump (or your face), not wearing deoderant when you're sweltering in the sun and carrying a little heat creator inside you, not wearing sunscreen... all because there may possibly be a minimal risk to your baby, maybe?
Pregnancy is hard enough without 'helpful' advice like this. And the trouble is, what starts as advice ends up as dogma. And this approach isn't taken with anything except pregnancy. Links have been mooted/substantiated between all sorts of things and devastating illnesses. Sugar, car fumes, hydrogenated fat, food colourings, pesticides. But are we told to avoid them just in case? No, we're told that without any firm evidence, we should just keep calm and carry on.
I totally get that creating life is important and that genuine threats need to be shouted from the rooftops. But advice like this, making women feel guilty if they so much as rub their face with a bit of Nivea?
Really not helpful at all.
Sunday 2 June 2013
Sunday nights...
Is it terrible that sometimes, by Sunday night, after a glorious weekend with the kids I'm (whisper it) kind of looking forward to Monday, when I can get back to work?
I mean look, sure, I adore them, love hanging out with them, watching them, playing with them, seeing them learn new stuff, seeing them blossom into little people with interests and thoughts and opinions.
But my God, the mopping up and the dishwasher loading and the food preparation and clearing away, and the screaming, the fighting, the not having a moment to read the paper or sit and have a cup of tea... And the questions. Oh my. That's the nearly-six year old. I counted 342 questions this morning and then I gave up. They just don't stop. The toddler tantrums (the nearly two year old). The pushing every boundary to see what might happen (the four year old).
I'm exhausted.
And I'm looking happily at my desk knowing that tomorrow I can sit down, drink coffee, with no one pestering me. And I can work.
I mean look, sure, I adore them, love hanging out with them, watching them, playing with them, seeing them learn new stuff, seeing them blossom into little people with interests and thoughts and opinions.
But my God, the mopping up and the dishwasher loading and the food preparation and clearing away, and the screaming, the fighting, the not having a moment to read the paper or sit and have a cup of tea... And the questions. Oh my. That's the nearly-six year old. I counted 342 questions this morning and then I gave up. They just don't stop. The toddler tantrums (the nearly two year old). The pushing every boundary to see what might happen (the four year old).
I'm exhausted.
And I'm looking happily at my desk knowing that tomorrow I can sit down, drink coffee, with no one pestering me. And I can work.
Saturday 1 June 2013
Things that save me time... and things that don't
I hate that my life is always rushed; the things I miss the most about my life pre-children is the ability to take my time over things. Like getting up in the morning. Like having breakfast. Looking out of the window. I am always rushing back from places, rushing the children out of the door, rushing in and out of the shower. Blow drying my hair is often a luxury too far.
But one of the benefits of this fast-paced existence is that I have learned how and where to cut corners and trim time. I have also identified the things that take too long, that make things worse. So here is my list; please add to it with your own because seriously, I could use the help.
Things that save time:
1. Jamie Oliver's new 15 minute recipe book. They take 30 mins but they're delicious and easy (if you buy the right ingredients)
2. Taking the time to go through the kitchen cupboards properly before ordering the supermarket shop so that I can tell at a glance what we need and what we don't
3. Ordering the supermarket shop over the internet (subject to number 2)
4. Ordering most stuff over the internet (with a caveat... see number 1 of the next list)
5. Laying out clothes for the following day before I go to bed. Five minutes is not long enough to shower, get dressed AND work out what to wear
6. Keeping my daughter's hair cut in a bob so I don't have to plait it/clip it/spend hours brushing it in the morning (and it's devastatingly cute, which helps...)
7. Getting a good hair cut every 6 or 7 weeks.
Things that do not save time:
1. Impulse buying online and having to return huge parcels back to the post office
2. Exercise DVDs. Probably would save me time, but I never get round to doing them.
3. My phone(s). All the time I save being able to email on the go is more than made up for by the time I spend googling random things and refreshing my emails to see if there's anything new
4. Bundling the children out of the door too quickly. Two minutes later one of them will inevitably have a call of nature/have no coat/have no drink/need a nappy change and the nappy bag is at home. Tortoise works better than hare with young children.
5. Multi-tasking where it isn't absolutely essential. Nothing gets done properly, I start to feel scattered and then inevitably drop one or more of the balls I'm juggling.
Now, over to you...
But one of the benefits of this fast-paced existence is that I have learned how and where to cut corners and trim time. I have also identified the things that take too long, that make things worse. So here is my list; please add to it with your own because seriously, I could use the help.
Things that save time:
1. Jamie Oliver's new 15 minute recipe book. They take 30 mins but they're delicious and easy (if you buy the right ingredients)
2. Taking the time to go through the kitchen cupboards properly before ordering the supermarket shop so that I can tell at a glance what we need and what we don't
3. Ordering the supermarket shop over the internet (subject to number 2)
4. Ordering most stuff over the internet (with a caveat... see number 1 of the next list)
5. Laying out clothes for the following day before I go to bed. Five minutes is not long enough to shower, get dressed AND work out what to wear
6. Keeping my daughter's hair cut in a bob so I don't have to plait it/clip it/spend hours brushing it in the morning (and it's devastatingly cute, which helps...)
7. Getting a good hair cut every 6 or 7 weeks.
Things that do not save time:
1. Impulse buying online and having to return huge parcels back to the post office
2. Exercise DVDs. Probably would save me time, but I never get round to doing them.
3. My phone(s). All the time I save being able to email on the go is more than made up for by the time I spend googling random things and refreshing my emails to see if there's anything new
4. Bundling the children out of the door too quickly. Two minutes later one of them will inevitably have a call of nature/have no coat/have no drink/need a nappy change and the nappy bag is at home. Tortoise works better than hare with young children.
5. Multi-tasking where it isn't absolutely essential. Nothing gets done properly, I start to feel scattered and then inevitably drop one or more of the balls I'm juggling.
Now, over to you...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)