The “having it all” debate seems to surround me
lately by that strange phenomenon when you consider something once and then see
it explode all around you. Professors and commencement speakers in college
addressed the idea, but at twenty one “having it all” seemed to be a debate
inconveniently dragged into our time by those who came and fought before us.
Now, it bombards me repeatedly. A well-known journalist and feminist, speaking
at our graduation, talked of all the victories our grandmothers had earned us,
leaving us to answer the relatively new question of how to have it all.
Women can have it all! Women can’t have it all! Women can’t ignore biology! Women should ignore
biology! Women should practice attachment parenting! Women should avoid
helicoptering their children! Women, women, women. Where are the men in this debate? Surely, leaving them
out of the battle and in the living room watching TV defeats the entire
purpose, doesn’t it?
The neat dichotomy between love and success and
family and career is a presupposition that these elements are mutually
exclusive. I’m not referring to baby-wearing to work or flexible working hours,
I mean the very idea that having it “all” means hanging on to many things you
hold dear all by yourself. Men may
not birth babies, or breastfeed or race against as strict a reproductive clock,
but they do, in strictly biological terms, form half the equation in creating
babies. If it is assumed that the debate about whether it is possible to juggle
job and family doesn’t concern them, the position is inherently sexist. It may
not concern all men, but no woman in
a committed relationship should be questioning whether she can achieve feminist
utopia alone. Whatever your expectations are from life, whether it is to have twelve children and stay at home
with them, earn three advanced degrees, start your own company, simply make
ends meet or all the above, you should be able to know that havingitall is not
a lonely enterprise. It is not the straightforward one discussed so often in
the media, with its images of snappily-dressed career women arriving home at
5pm to feed the children (alone), or the one of Supermom preparing breakfast
for ten (alone) before scheduling the day for her kids (alone) and having a
June Cleaveresque relationship with her husband, who is a well-intentioned but
bumbling, clueless mutt.
And if it is a
lonely enterprise, or a single one, or a same-sex one, you will notice there
are not many voices decrying the desire to be perfect, traditional wives and
mothers while also being perfect and high-powered everythingelse. Perhaps they
already realize the individual-ness of major life decisions, perhaps they watch
less television, perhaps they expect less of men, perhaps they expect more of men-as we should. Whether men
decide to be stay-at-home dads or whether they choose to be the sole breadwinners,
the choice cannot be left to be made by women alone and forever.
The world is a mess of choices six years after my
first induction into the cheerful belief that havingitall is something the modern
woman does and messes are not meant to be swept by women alone. Time to stop
asking if women can do it all and pass the broom around for a much tidier state
of mind.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lisaquast/2012/09/10/women-can-have-it-all-just-not-all-at-the-same-time/
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9567198/Christine-Lagarde-Women-cant-have-it-all.html