FT.com | Dear Lucy | ‘I’m discriminated against at work because I’m childless’

April 10, 2007

‘I’m discriminated against at work because I’m childless’

I work in a team of five people, and mostly we get along quite well together. However increasingly I am bothered by the fact that I am the only childless one among them. I can just about put up with being left out of the conversation - they go on and on about schools and childcare, but I am fed up with having to cover for them. I always have to work school holidays. They all take time off freely for parents evenings. I wouldn’t mind if it was occasional, but it is all the time. I have lost count of the number of extra hours I have to do to help them out of a fix with childcare or illness. This year I said I wanted to take holiday in August and was asked if I’d mind changing it as they were tied to school holidays. I backed down, as I didn’t seem to have much choice.

Recently I told our boss that I felt that as a childless person I was being discriminated against. My boss (who has children of his own) said it was company policy to be flexible towards working parents. He also implied that my attitude was somehow ungenerous, and that all team members should be supportive of each other. This conversation has made me feel a lot worse. I am now enraged at the unfairness of it all. Is there anything I can do?
IT consultant, female 37

April 10th, 2007 in Uncategorised | Permalink

42 Responses to “‘I’m discriminated against at work because I’m childless’”

Comments

I sympathise, but complaining of discrimination will only make you look like a bitter shrew. Rather, stand up for yourself - take your holiday exactly when you want to, refuse unreasonable requests to bail out your colleagues in your own personal time, and, since the company has a policy of flexibility for families, make sure you leave early some days in order to visit your parents and siblings. If, that is, you really want to work in an office with dull-as-dishwater banter and a team ethos that only extends as far as you helping everyone else out.
Female, 25, Financial PR
Posted by: Anonymous | April 10th, 2007 at 4:20 pm | Report this comment
Make the most of the company’s family-friendly policies - you might not be a mother, but you still have a family. So if you want to spend time helping an elderly or ill relative, then ask your colleagues to cover for you. They could even cover when you are looking after a nephew or niece.

Male journalist, 20s
Posted by: Anonymous | April 10th, 2007 at 5:08 pm | Report this comment
Talking with your boss was a good idea, however, the way you presented it could have been a bit more neutral. Would it have made a difference if you had shown him a list of how many times you were asked to cover for them, and how many times they covered for you? Then reinforce that you are not unhappy they all have kids, you just want your requests to be as respect and responded to as theirs are. Ask him if he really expects you to be the only one who works around their schedules? Shouldn’t the parents work with each other to cover their childrens needs and not assume that only those workers without children are the backup? I am sure you are not the only childless person in the company, and he needs to respect their time and requests for vacation. if you are the only childless person in the company, then you actually are a discrimination law suit waiting to happen.
Administrator, 50s
Posted by: C Warren | April 10th, 2007 at 5:28 pm | Report this comment
Get a piece of the action yourself. Pregnancy would be tedious and it’s too late to pretend you have children of your own. Your best bet is to declare that, after years of waiting, you have finally received approval from the authorities to adopt. Borrow some nephews and nieces and cobble together some suitably cheesy photos for your desk. Your imaginary brood will allow you to go home early, deflect extra work, banter about Swedish nannies and permit peak season holidays (though God only knows why you would volunteer for that).
Posted by: Director, male, 32 | April 10th, 2007 at 5:41 pm | Report this comment
As with drugs, just say NO.
I understand your boss’s comment that “all team members be supportive of each other”. It is after all his role to foster unity. However it is also his role to assure that this “support” is applied uniformly, which would include all who expect to gain in any manner from it. Regardless of others family schedules, or what you may have planned for you holiday, your choice should be the final word. You should be able to take your time as planned when you wish to do so, and your Boss should assure that your colleagues hold nothing against you for doing so.

Nothing bothers me more then those who feel entitled, especially as it relates to people with children. I have no children, and I have often run into the likes of those with whom you work. My feeling is that I’m happy to accomodate those in need, especially if they are willing to reciprocate, however only on my own terms. If not, just say NO, and leave it at that.
Posted by: Kevin Conway | April 10th, 2007 at 6:59 pm | Report this comment
Despite one comment above it’s not too late for you to have a family if you want to do so, but that is not the point. You feel that you are being treated unfairly. Do the other four ever cover for you when you need/want time off? If not, why not?
When I was your age and a bachelor, I assumed that I could not go on holiday in August because most of my colleagues were tied to school holidays and so they had less choice, but it didn’t worry me, and my boss covered for me when I wanted to take a week’s holiday in May for charitable work each year - in fact he flippantly suggested it one year and was thoroughly taken aback when I took him literally but he coped manfully each of the next half-dozen years without complaining.
The problem is not childlessness but fairness: if your colleagues are not prepared to support you comparably, then the word “team” is a misnomer. You might like to write to the Chairman of the Governors of each school that demands that your colleagues break their contract of employment to attend parents’ “evenings”.
Obviously there is more than you have said since I did not feel “put upon” and the only stated differences from myself at your age is gender and that I did not feel a need to complain, but if I had I assume that my boss would have responded, very sadly, in similar vein to what you have reported.
Male, 60, Consultant Investment Analyst
Posted by: John Borgars | April 10th, 2007 at 8:24 pm | Report this comment
Promote your own interests and do not tolerate the parents’ “dull-as-dishwater banter” (to borrow from Female, 25, Financial PR); your cubiclemates will adjust. For example, one day in the mines, my wife asked a childless colleague if she wanted to hear an endearing anecdote about our four-year-old. Her co-worker flatly replied, “No,” without looking up from her desk, and that was that. A seasoned observer pulled my spouse aside and counseled gently, “Don’t worry, dear, she detests children. Next time, offer to chat about her cats.”
Posted by: Unemployed managing director, 49, financial services | April 10th, 2007 at 8:54 pm | Report this comment
Children are necessary to the preservation of the species, so reasonable discrimination in favor of children and their parents is justified. Sorry.
Posted by: Dr. James J. Stewart | April 11th, 2007 at 6:20 am | Report this comment
Go with the flow, life is about give and take. But do note all the times you have ‘given’ and when you really need an evening off or holiday remind your colleagues of your sacrifices.
Why not throw into the conversation the wonderful opera, football match, romantic dinner, secluded holiday you had to remind them there can be life beyond children.
Investment Consultant,41, Zurich
Posted by: James Day | April 11th, 2007 at 6:58 am | Report this comment
The misunderstanding is that it is not a service for parents, but for CHILDREN. Not only are these children raised to look after you (services, tax, pension, continuity of the companies we invest in) but also we ALL have benefited from our parents taking time off work. It may have been unfair that your parents did not look after you as well as other parents do, but that is between you and your parents. None the less I agree your colleagues could be less abusive and assume a few more sacrifices for the joy of raising children. Indeed, as an independent, I already feel abused by my civil servant wife for childcare issues.

Happy part time working father.
Posted by: Jan Willem baron van Heemstra | April 11th, 2007 at 8:37 am | Report this comment
Insurance Manager Age 37-Male

As a MBNK (married but no kids) I understand your frustrations but as with most areas of life you either seek equal treatment or stop complaining. Time pressed parents will always follow the path of least resistance. On the plus side, in your old age you may enjoy the fiscal benefits of your colleagues productivity.
Posted by: Mark Moran | April 11th, 2007 at 9:04 am | Report this comment
Rejoice that (a) someone else is rearing the workforce which will make your pension investments pay out (b) you can buy out of season low cost holidays (c) you can sleep in at weekends.
Posted by: Tax consultant, 44, male | April 11th, 2007 at 9:07 am | Report this comment
Get a child yourself and try it the hardway to get entangled in silly conversations about nappies and children’s food. It’s tiring but great fun!
In relation to holidays, why bother going on holidays in August when wherever you go you will have to deal with crowds of crying children?
Posted by: Father of one and another one coming soon, 37, male | April 11th, 2007 at 12:00 pm | Report this comment
Being left out of non-work related conversation due to lack of shared interest is not discrimination. If you don’t like it, leave. However if you are, as you imply, the sole source of cover for all your child-rearing colleagues, that is discrimination. Flexibilty for working parents is entirely reasonable (Companies need to retain them after all) and something you’ll just have to accept, but it should be up to your employer (i.e. your boss) to ensure that suitable cover arrangements exist.

Banker, Male, 35
Posted by: Anonymous | April 11th, 2007 at 12:21 pm | Report this comment
The reality is that you should recognise that there is little you can do about your problem until we see change from this politically correct world to something closer to common sense. You can win the small battles, but reconcile yourself to losing the war. I experienced the same for years, and the best I achieved was to get the mother in at 12 noon on Sunday (rather than 2pm) when I was in all weekend. Meanwhile, I never saw my teenage boys.

Financial manager (retired), 59, male.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 11th, 2007 at 1:06 pm | Report this comment
Dr. James, you don’t sound sorry to me at all only a bit arrogant. The issue here is not about discrimination in favour of employees with children but discrimination against one who does not have children. I agree with those who say the childless should stick up for their rights: my one suggestion would be to try as much as possible to do it in an assertive rather than an agressive way.

43, Economist, Male
Posted by: Jonathan Davies | April 11th, 2007 at 1:13 pm | Report this comment
I’m in a similar situation and I’ve had enough. At my workplace, all requests for flexible working, staying at home with my blackberry while awaiting the gasman, etc, are automatically rejected on Mondays and Fridays, because the parents are working at home (if at all), because they can’t be bothered coming in from their nice semi-rural idyll with good schools for 40% of the working week. I have to cover christmas (ie half of December and half of January) and easter (ditto March and April), as well as all of July and August, because it simply wouldn’t do to expose yourself to a family-unfriendliness grievance procedure by saying no. Those of us without children are sneered at. “Family-friendly? What about my bloody family?”

Glib nonsense about “they’ll be paying your pension” or “reasonable discrimination is legitimate” is frankly utterly offensive when I’m paying for their schools, healthcare, etc, doing goodly chunks of their parents’ work, AND have the privilege of subsidising their parents’ taxes, thanks to the nauseating tax credit system.

If this thread makes ONE parent, or ONE HR director appreciate what a disgrace this situation has become, it will be worth it, but I won’t hold my breath. I’m sick of doing double my closest colleague’s billable hours then having her complain that the company discriminates against mothers because it doesn’t count time spent on maternity leave as active service (whereupon the company, of course, backs down). We started on the same day seven years ago, and I’ve been doing the job for twice as long, not even counting the countless Mondays and Fridays at home, or the extra hours I have to put in to compensate. Every time I want a day off I have to provide documentary evidence two weeks in advance that the others will be there to cover for me (if they subsequently aren’t, because the situation below occurs, it’s my fault). Every time she wants one she tells our boss the day after she’s had it (whereupon a conversation about how terrible the world is for ickle kiddies is ensues).

Enough is enough. You can’t keep kicking the dog.
Posted by: underpaid city worker, male, 36 | April 11th, 2007 at 1:25 pm | Report this comment
This issue is a good example of the society we live in today - where the politically correct brigade have taken a sensible idea (support for parents and their children) and taken it to an extreme. The end result is that the parents take it as their god given right to come and go as they please (how many of us know of colleagues who take Carer Leave when we all know that it is just another form of sicky, then when that allowance has run out, they take a sicky). Those without children (”who don’t know how hard it is to bring kids up nowadays”) are expected to accept this and cover. To suggest otherwise is often treat like heresy by those with the god given rights.
Let’s face it, children are a lifestyle choice, the same as owning a horse or going on a lot of expensive holidays. Would i be allowed regular time off to care for my gerbil?. We all take a choice knowing the consequences, and we should all take responsibility for those choices. Your colleagues should not expect you to cover without reciprocity. If they can’t work within the company’s requirements, they should get another job - and take responsibility for their lifestyle choices.
Director, Male, 41. No children.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 11th, 2007 at 1:53 pm | Report this comment
There will soon come a time when childfree single people will be able to file lawsuits for discrimination at the workplace with the International Human Rights Court in Luxembourg. Parenthood is an option, not an obligation. It is for those who want to have offspring to cope with the displeasures of bringing up their children. And it is certainly not for childfree people to fill in parents’ school schedule gaps at the expense of their own leisure time. Parenthood does not entitle anybody to any privileges. Childfree people also have careers to pursue and lives well worth living. You cannot have it all.
Posted by: Journalist, 37, female | April 11th, 2007 at 2:03 pm | Report this comment
43, Economist, Male I agree. No one (rational) is against flexibility for working parents provided there is a little give and take, albeit required on a much more infrequent basis. Regardless of a company’s legal obligations, covering for colleagues who have not made adequate childcare provision to cover their entire business day/week is in fact a goodwill gesture on the part of one’s colleagues, rather than just another business duty they are obliged to perform. If one makes a lifestyle choice not to have children it does seem absurd that this chosen lifestyle can be compromised by someone else’s decision to procreate. That said it helps no one to be aggressive, especially in such a small team - parents do need the help, perhaps they just expect it too readily because it has never been an issue before? Just try to be a bit more assertive and sometimes insist on your own way. You may get a surprise - if not find another job….no doubt they will then appreciate you a lot more!
Posted by: 32, Banker, Female | April 11th, 2007 at 2:31 pm | Report this comment
Your employer is acting like a rabbit caught in the headlights when faced with the Government’s drive for family friendly rights. Managing flexibility is about balancing the needs of all staff, not just those with children. Parental rights do not extend to being able to insist on time off for parents evenings or during school holidays, necessarily to take time off during the whole of a child’s illness or allowing an employer to give their needs priority at the expense of childless colleagues. You don’t have a freestanding right to claim discrimination on grounds that you are childless but if your employer continues to overburden you to compensate for its lax management of your colleagues, you will have a claim for constructive dismissal and potentially for stress related personal injury. Legal action is really the last resort and an expensive route for most. If your preference is to stay try and have a full and frank discussion with HR or someone more senior than your manager about your treatment and the impact it is having on you. Avoid just moaning - you are much more likely to achieve a change by talking constructively and suggesting improvements. Otherwise, and if the constructive approach doesn’t work, start looking for another job. There are plenty of employers who take a more robust and fair approach to managing the needs of all their staff.
Posted by: Joanna Chatterton, Employment Lawyer, 37, 2 children | April 11th, 2007 at 4:25 pm | Report this comment
This unhappy lady’s feelings appear sour, selfish and short-sighted. One day, she will be hoping that other peoples’ children (for whose upbringing the parents will have paid both financially and in other ways)will help to provide for her pension and the upkeep of the country when she is long past being able to do so herself. She either has not or could not take this step to secure her own future - either way she should be grateful to those who have carried the parental burden for her. Childless people tend to overlook this fundamental truth. The raising of children is a public service in itself and should be supported by all right minded people, not resented and undermined.

Male Investment Banker Age 56
Posted by: GAS | April 11th, 2007 at 6:11 pm | Report this comment
This unhappy lady’s feelings appear sour, selfish and short-sighted. One day, she will be hoping that other peoples’ children (for whose upbringing the parents will have paid both financially and in other ways)will help to provide for her pension and the upkeep of the country when she is long past being able to do so herself. She either has not or could not take this step to secure her own future - either way she should be grateful to those who have carried the parental burden for her. Childless people tend to overlook this fundamental truth. The raising of children is a public service in itself and should be supported by all right minded people, not resented and undermined.

Investment Banker Age 56
Posted by: GAS | April 11th, 2007 at 6:14 pm | Report this comment
Your problem is not parenthood or childlessness, but rather your employer’s inability to control a workplace policy of flexibility with fairness and equanimity. Discuss with your employer (preferably with Human Resources in earshot) in terms of unfair treatment, a culture of disrespect, and lack of economy — concepts any decent employer should care about. Be careful to depersonalize the issue of parenthood and your non-parent status (i.e. don’t mention it!), else you will simply be further marginalized as an employee and individual than it sounds like you already are. Also, stand up for yourself and your life with your parenting colleagues. We parents often forget that life sans children still contains elements of responsibility that need to be respected. In standing up for your life and responsibilities, don’t draw comparison to parenthood; unless, of course, you truly want to alienate yourself from The Gang of Four.

Male, Senior Operations Executive, 37
Posted by: Travis McCready | April 11th, 2007 at 7:33 pm | Report this comment
Why is my time less valuable because I don’t have children? Am I somehow a lesser being? I am increasingly infuriated by this tyranny of political correctness that requires those of us without children to bend and flex to suit the childcare and family vacation needs of parents in the workplace. I have chosen not to have children thus far in my lfe but if the obligations that come with parenthood are foisted on me indirectly (through having to adjust my plans and cover for others) then that freedom of choice is undermined and I resent that because it is unfair. And no, I won’t expect the same special treatment when I decide to have children.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | April 11th, 2007 at 8:18 pm | Report this comment
If childless by choice, be happy. You are selfless and your colleagues are selfish for burdening others and overpopulating the world. If childless with regret, wait. Happiness is on the way.
Posted by: Retired Lawyer, 55, no kids | April 11th, 2007 at 11:32 pm | Report this comment
You have 3 problems:
First, office talk. Why don’t you bring up topics that are of interest to you and to the others. Are you so boring?
Second, covering for the others. Don’t you have a private life yourself? Why don’t you start learning a language, join a choir, a theatre group or a dance course? Then you could say - no, I am sorry, Wednesdays I cannot stay longer, I have an important rehearsel (or whatever).
Third, holidays. Put in a holiday request early, ask for only 2 weeks in the school holidays, not the full period. When your request is authorised, book something. When you then have to cancel, the company should bear the costs. That might be an argument in your favour.
And most important: Stop whining. Your problem are not your colleagues. It is your unfulfilled life. Giving your social life some structure might even make you find Mr Right and have some offspring of your own, now despised because you have none…

Manager, 38, mother.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 12th, 2007 at 10:07 am | Report this comment
Investment Banker, 56: Sour, selfish and shortsighted? Those of us who work are the ones paying the taxes to provide for our future… national insurance contributions are highly unlikely to provide anything by way of a state pension for my generation. Any pension I have is down to my own provision I’m afraid, not anyone else’s kids…
Posted by: 32, banker, female | April 12th, 2007 at 4:30 pm | Report this comment
Daddy/Cartographic Analyst, 41: You may as well have said they all have a drinking problem and you are tired of covering for them. When you take on the mantle of the enabler in a relationship, don’t be surprised when you are taken advantage of. You now have to wean your colleagues off of your generosity. Do it slowly and steadily so they don’t resent you so much. Have a good (and credible) reason why you can’t be there for them. “I’m tutoring a group of disadvantaged orphans tonight - sorry!” Oh yes, and don’t complain openly. We parents are a little oversensitive about what we feel is the anti-child, anti-family currents running through society today.
Posted by: Thomas Beretich | April 13th, 2007 at 12:57 am | Report this comment
Get a life yourself, and get out of the office to nurture those other interests. Childcare just happens to be one commonly used and generally accepted excuse for absenteeism (because it’s common). Tell people you have to leave early/ come in late because you are abseiling, paragliding, knitting, base jumping, go kart racing - whatever. And then leave the office to pursue that interest. No one will dare complain, because you will be justified in giving them an earful if they do.
Workers of the world unite and develop some other interests before it is too late!
But don’t overdo the absenteeism (because that is what it is, from the perspective of the workplace) otherwise you will cross the line from motivated, dedicated employee to work truant.

46 year old, childless female, chief operating officer - banking.
Posted by: Sarah Pearson | April 13th, 2007 at 4:20 am | Report this comment
I can hardly write this for fuming. Other people’s children will not pay my pension - I will do that myself. Other people’s children will not visit me in a nursing home when I am old - I may very well be on my own and lonely, but I have accepted that as part of my choice to be childless. Other people do not have children for the benefit of society in general - they do it because they want to (and possibly because they are afraid of being lonely when they are old!) I have yet to meet a a parent who says they didn’t really want children but felt they had to do their duty to society.
The fact that society needs children does not mean that those of us who are childless should have to bow and scrape to those who have chosen to have children for their own perceived benefits. Society pays for the ’service’ through education and child benefit etc via taxes. Society needs all sorts of people - professionals, carers, refuse collectors - and we each make a contribution. Breeding is NOT the only worthwhile occupation!
It should not be up to specific individuals to sacrifice their own choices for the choices of others. I had that for 20 years in the City. Now I work at home and it’s no longer a problem. For those of you still out there and still facing this immense frustration every day, you have my utmost sympathy. I wish I had an answer.
Posted by: Writer, 46, no children | April 13th, 2007 at 10:25 am | Report this comment
Lucy Kellaway: You are a whiner. But you are in good company there: lots of the people who submit problems to me are also whiners. Usually I suggest that they stop it, as many readers have suggested above. However in your case whining is completely justified, and I know I’d be doing it in your shoes.

I think you are being discriminated against in a weak sort of way. You are expected to work less flexibly to accommodate the needs of parents, who are allowed to work more flexibly. The difficulty is that your sort of discrimination runs against the HR blueprint, set up to protect the parent, not you. If you want to make more of a fuss about your case I doubt if you’ll find anyone to support you.

Reading the responses above, you’ve been given much advice, some of it bad. Lots of people suggest that you develop rival hobbies of your own and then slope off early to pursue them. This misses the point. Time off for salsa dancing lessons is not permissable. Time off for sports day is. It is very unfair.

Readers also suggest you should propose alternative topics of conversation. This is fantasy. People intent on discussing their children’s schooling are like a whole bunch of ancient mariners. They insist on having their tedious say, come what may.

So what can you do? I don’t think you can do much. Your best hope is that your reward comes in your pay packet or promotion prospects. You work hardest, you deserve to do best. But I’m not holding my breath. You were right to talk to your boss, and should probably go on doing so, though in a slightly more positive way.

One day the pendulum may swing away from family-friendly policies but that’ll be too late to help you. In the meantime, I suggest you get better at saying no, and try to stop minding quite so much.
Posted by: lucy kellaway | April 15th, 2007 at 1:16 pm | Report this comment
I have had a similar problem at work. There are three people working in a similar position to mine–myself and two key-time workers who effectively job-share. There came a point recently where our company had to remove one of our support positions to cut costs and they removed mine on two counts.

1) They said I was younger than the others and therefore would able to work better under the pressures of a sales (rather than a support) role. This decision was taken because the other two, who have families, said they could not balance the pressures of a sales job with a family life! (Why bother working at all in that case?)

2) They said that as I did not have children it is my duty to help my team mates out. Why? Why should my job position (a position they demoted into by complaining but which I obtained through promotion) for them? I explained this to my manager who could not understand my point of view–and she even called me selfish.

Nevertheless this has made me embittered against the company for which I work, and I have now applied elsewhere. Moral of the story? Never let anyone push you around…you are better than that!
Posted by: A Single Woman in her twenties | April 15th, 2007 at 8:10 pm | Report this comment
Just one point: while being advised to remember in my retirement that the children I deferred to today will be keeping me - let me as a single, childless, tax-payer point out that I - not their parents - am paying for their health and education.
Posted by: Diana Jeffery | April 16th, 2007 at 9:46 am | Report this comment
Become their manager.
Posted by: Besir Amcaogu | April 16th, 2007 at 10:06 pm | Report this comment
I don’t understand why you feel you are the one always forced to cover for everyone. Surely they are not all out at once on school holidays/parents evenings/sports days? Can’t they cover for each other sometimes? Also, is the “coverage” required during normal working hours? In that case you are there anyway - what is the problem? If it is for work in the evenings, you need to get better at saying no - have a stack of reasons ready to use in case you are not actually busy but simply want a night off. And book your August holiday if you are keen to go and can’t take it/go with the same people at another time.

Female, 30, analyst, childless
Posted by: A. Anderson | April 17th, 2007 at 9:02 am | Report this comment
Thrilled to see that at least one other person had my response: a fictional family! Mine (fantasy only, but it got me through those “It’s not fair” times) was characterised by sufficient special circumstances (mother a tragic early demise, children very young) that it would (in my dreams) excuse me from nearly anything I didn’t want to do. And, surprisingly to me, that was enough to allow me to say on occasion “No, I can’t” without further explanation.

Good luck!
Posted by: 45 single female professional service firm partner | April 18th, 2007 at 7:52 am | Report this comment
Flexibility for employee’s working time is good practice. Unfortunately flexibility can be a source of vast annoyance if it appears to favour employees who have children, aged parents, a particularly strong desire to “serve the community” or a hypochondriac pet.

“Best practice” seems to be the adoption of formal flexible working time. If everyone works the core hours and the same amount of total hours as everyone else, it is perfectly possible to be genuinely sympathetic to a colleague encountering any kind of event, be it an unjustified child related ASBO hearing, a grisly school parents’ day or having to await the delivery of an Internet/Mail Order transaction.

That said, ideally people are judged on achievement not hours drudged, so if your consulting on IT is much more robust and effective than the rest of the team, why wait for the headhunter’s call?
Posted by: Ironybrew. 57, Retired, Male. | April 20th, 2007 at 5:45 pm | Report this comment
Society continues to expect women to be the main carers for their children and if you worked in a team staffed by fathers this problem would be unlikely to arise. In the predictable absence of any immediate change in society’s unfair expectations, you have the opportunity to mimic the professional behavior of an ambitious father, by being conspicuously willing and able to respond to any urgent or important work needs. Not only is such work normally more interesting, it is also more visible to and appreciated by your boss and your boss’s boss. You have an advantage, use it.
Posted by: Ironybrew, 57, Retired, Male | April 23rd, 2007 at 4:35 pm | Report this comment
Having children, in the majority of circumstances, is a choice. It is not a ‘right’ and by no means is a ‘public service’. My best suggestion is to establish friends as a ‘urban family’ (or if you’re lucky use your existing network) and insist that the activities of this non-traditional family deserve the same priority as those with traditional biological families.
Posted by: 23 single female | May 30th, 2007 at 1:13 pm | Report this comment
Parenthood is so utterly and endlessly tiring, and it’s only recently that many of us are even coming out of the closet and even admitting we might have responsibilities outside work. Some of us even end up unexpectedly in a sort of bizarre ‘care sandwich’ where we’re expected to be perfect parents for our kids, as well as looking after increasingly large numbers of elderly relatives as well ‘as we’re around anyway’. You can choose your kids, but not your elderly relatives.

However your problem all sounds to me like a lack of team work in your office, so I would go along with the advice of other people and get a life yourself. That way you could get all your (hopefully) indulgent holidays and outside activities booked in the diary, during cheaper off peak times even, and earn yourself a bit of peace and quiet on your own terms.

As regards the boring office conversations, that’s more tricky. There’s not much you can do about that unless you join in. Perhaps find it in your heart to take a child under your wing a bit, for the purposes of having something to talk about at work, and also discovering what all the fuss is about? The tradition is to take them out doing splendid and amusing things involving extravagant ice creams and so on, handing them back when they get difficult or messy. It can be diverting and amusing, and you will also feel more part of what is going on around you, and perhaps a bit more positive about the situation without feeling you have sold out completely to the parent mafia. Best of luck.
Posted by: Consultant, 39, female (three kids but fairly objective about the state of parenthood) | May 30th, 2007 at 1:38 pm | Report this comment
While I applaud your company being supportive of working parents their poor treatment of you is reprehensible and unequal. While you are demonstrating work commitment and colleague compassion by being flexible, your boss is at risk of damaging your morale and generosity, and this is very short-sighted. Having been in similar situations, I can sympathise, especially as I am childless, but would dearly love to have had a family, so feel doubly done down when I’ve been on the receiving end of similar treatment. My advice to you is to know your own worth. Be generous and flexible when it is something you want to freely give, but demand flexibility for your life when you need it. If your employer cannot realise that there is give and take in this life, then I would suggest you look for a job where you are better recognised. Yes, those of us without children are supportive of those who have children, but we are not doormats. Good luck and know your own worth, in knowing that you can have the courage to be supportive of both your colleagues and your own needs.
Posted by: Cassandra Brown, 43, Managing Director | June 6th, 2007 at 9:53 pm | Report this comment

Answers may be published in the Financial Times newspaper. Please include your first name (surname is not needed), email address, gender, age and job title. Want to report an offensive or unsuitable comment? Our comment guidelines, including reporting procedures, can be found here.