Can Women Have It All? No. But Neither Can Men.
Pages: 1 2
You may remember Lori Gottlieb – author of the bestseller, Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough. I was Lori’s dating coach while she wrote her book and I remain a fan of her writing, which is generally funny, self-aware, and accessible. Her latest article, in The Atlantic, is no different: Why There’s No Such Thing as ‘Having It All’—and There Never Will Be. This piece is a reaction to this week’s Atlantic cover story by Anne-Marie Slaughter, titled Why Women Still Can’t Have It All.
I was inclined to write a long response, adding fuel to the fire, but this series of articles has gone so viral that there’s now an entire page dedicated to women’s work/life balance on the Atlantic website.
The one that best describes my thoughts, apart from the Gottlieb piece, was the one written by James Joyner, entitled “Men Can’t Have It All Either”.
To sum up, in short, people do what they want. Not men. Not women. People. If you want to work 70 hours a week, your relationships will suffer. If you want to be there for your children, you have to work less. If you want to achieve great things in your career, you better have a supportive spouse who is willing to somewhat sacrifice his/her career OR have a lot of money to pay for a full-time nanny. As others have already pointed out, these are simply rich people problems. The vast majority of the world doesn’t even have the illusion of “having it all”.
If you want to achieve great things in your career, you better have a supportive spouse who is willing to somewhat sacrifice his/her career OR have a lot of money to pay for a full-time nanny.
As a driven, successful man, I’m thrilled to have a wife who, by her own accord, decided to become a full-time mom after 17 years at her company. She found the calling of motherhood to be more important than her satisfying career and was surprised that she doesn’t even feel the pull for part-time work right now.
She’s equally entitled to her career. This was her choice. If she decided to work again, these would be our choices:
If she went back part time, we’d need a nanny for the 2 days a week she would work.
If she went back full-time, we’d need a full-time nanny/daycare.
And if she were really ambitious, it would fall upon me to work part-time in order to accommodate her travel and 70 hour work weeks.
You either need a ton of money or one partner has to give.
 |
Why He Disappeared is the smart, strong, successful woman's guide to understanding men. If you want to learn how men think, and rediscover how to have meaningful relationships - all from a man's point of view - click here to learn Why He Disappeared. |
Do You Want to Attract the Partner of Your Dreams?
If so, sign up for my free dating and relationship newsletter and receive my free eBook, The 5 Massive Mistakes You're Making In Your Love Life - And How to Turn Them Around Instantly. Simple and effective advice to jumpstart your love life.
48 Comments »Filed Under Marriage
DinaStrange 1
I applaud you, Evan that you guys decided to let your wife be a full time mom. There is nothing better for a new born baby than to have his mom available 24/7. Wish more men were as wise.
Daphne 2
I also think Ms Slaughter knew from the very start that she wanted to be at the very top of her profession, and knew that she’d have to compromise terribly on motherhood (time w her kids). She’s pretending that it hurts her but if that was so impossible to live with, she’d have moved to a less demanding job at a less prestigious university. This was a conscious, planned choice.
Jackie Holness 3
Even as a single woman, I know I can’t have it all…If you want to lead a balanced life, it does require balance…
John 4
I would have to agree, if you are both working full time even 40 hours a week, let alone 70 that leaves little to no time to really have a relationship or family time. I can understand both working long hours if your trying to save up money to buy a house for example, but if you have children it’s not good for them to grow up with parents who they rarely see.
JoAnn 5
I think you can have it all, just not all at the same time!
Belle 6
Agreed. And as someone who chooses family and the pursuit of passions first on my priority list, I know that I need to give up an ambitious career – or at least know that I can’t have all of them at the same time. Some people might see women who don’t go full steam ahead on their careers as poor souls who can’t/don’t realize their full potential – but I don’t share that perspective at all. I see myself as a woman who is realizing her full potential in other aspects of life that I personally value *more* than having a fantastic career.
Helen 7
I don’t think there’s much to argue with here.
I will just re-emphasize the point: You have to be VERY, VERY sure you want to have kids before you actually have them. They change the whole picture – of your life, of your relationships, of your marriage, of your work. Don’t leap into it blindly just because you perceive that others are.
Chau 8
Thanks for the share Evan!
These 2 articles are some of my favorites that I’ve ever read…
Slaughter’s and Lori’s take on this whole “You can have it all” mentality deal directly with the men and women from my generation (mid 20s).
It’s refreshing to hear from someone who’s been there…done that and see how it’s worked out (or not) for them.
I now have an even stronger incentive to “make it big” as soon as I can so that I’d have more time with my family by the time I settle down.
And I have a quick question for you and your wife:
When she was still building her career in her 20s, did she ever think “When I have a child, I will be a full-time mom?”
Or did she realize how important family is to her AFTER she had your child?
David T 9
@John 4 if you are both working full time even 40 hours a week, let alone 70 that leaves little to no time to really have a relationship or family time.
I disagree. I have seen couples with both parents working full time outside the home with fulfilling marriages and giving the kids enough attention. Of course you have less relationship and family time than if only one works, but you can still have a very fulfilling home life. My bro and sis-in-law did this: he went in early and came home early to be with the kids and made dinner. She sees them off to school in the morning and comes home in time for dinner. Every 6 months or so they swapped. They made alone time for just them a schedule priority. They hired sitters sometimes.
The first few years of a child’s life are trickier, true, but by elementary school age, this is not the case. In the example above, they did choose to have their first child in day care from what I considered a depressingly young age, and hired a 20-30 hour/week for a couple of years while both kids were preschool for a couple of years. Those were their choices and it worked for them. It can be done.
daphne 10
You can’t have it all, not all at the same time, as Ms Slaughter’s article indicates. Even after she earned tenure, she continued to work as hard because there were opportunities for further advancement. If she had not kept climbing she would have stalled her career and not been able to get back on the ladder.
@Helen, this is why we should stop talking about having it all. Not possible
susan 11
can anyone have it all? depends on what ”it all” is. I know couples who are more than happy with a 70 hour work week and kids in daycare. others who struggle on minimum wage – but happily – in order to spend more time with family. others where the Dad is primary care giver. And others, single parents who are doing a little of everything. If you asked them they would all say there were highs and lows, pluses and minuses however most would say they are CONTENT even if they didn’t have ”it all”.
Helen 12
David T: your brother’s family sounds super-organized.
Daphne and Susan: exactly. Not only can we not have it all, I would argue that we don’t really WANT it all. I totally agree with Daphne 2. I think Ms Slaughter was perfectly aware of the choices she was making. She just feels as though she SHOULD be ashamed that she chose to pursue career over extensive family time. A lot of us career women are made to feel that way.
As a career woman, I want to put my foot in and say that there is nothing wrong with pursuing one’s career. I love my children and would put them first if it came to an all-or-nothing choice, but! – On a day-to-day basis, I do enjoy ”work” better than kid activities. My work is enormously stimulating and rewarding, my colleagues are excellent, and I get a rush from what I do every single day, even though I’ve been working in this area for over a decade. In contrast, I really don’t enjoy kid activities. I don’t enjoy chauffeuring them to multiple activities, don’t enjoy kid parties, don’t enjoy taking them to playgrounds, don’t enjoy having to coordinate being in multiple places at multiple times because each child has their own playdate, meeting, game, etc. Sorry – I’m just being honest here. And this is just the tip of the iceberg; I’m so glad that the youngest is long out of diapers now and that the oldest is so far a reasonable tween.
I think these types of articles wouldn’t even be written if we mothers would be honest and stop acting ashamed for not wanting and doing everything. I don’t see any fathers throwing themselves into a tizzy because they aren’t serving on the PTO. I do see my female colleagues doing that. Some fathers want to be more involved in kid activities; some mothers want to be more career-oriented. There’s space for all kinds. Be yourself. Don’t feel as though you need to apologize to the world for your choices and preferences. It’s no one else’s business. You make it easier for others by choosing what you want and allowing others to do the same.
Nicole 13
@Helen,
I agree with you. I don’t know why women who work feel like they need to keep up with the women who don’t and who run the PTO, and I don’t know why they can’t let go and let those women do it.
Leave the cookie baking to people who don’t have to show up in court, or at an office, or a hospital for their jobs.
At any rate, I also think that when these women wind up middle-aged and divorced and unable to support themselves b/c they made the “noble” choice, I don’t really want to hear about it either. You’re taking a big chance putting your financial future in someone else’s hands, b/c it relies upon their fortunes and health remaining intact in addition to their feelings towards you.
So it might be great to stay at home if your husband can support you well, but you know, a lot of those men lose the urge to pay your bills after a divorce. And if I had a house husband and divorced him I wouldn’t want to pay his bills either.
And I don’t think I could ever forget that (or the fates of women who are widowed and also unable to support themselves b/c they’ve been out of work for too long).
But for sure, choose what you want. I just people didn’t just always paint it as if the people who choose the opposite of them are bad or selfish or lazy or whatever.
Rachael 14
Sometimes very financially successful women and career driven women forget that everyone’s idea of “it all” is different. Some tend to look down their noses at women who forge a different path. As if that woman is somehow doing herself and all women a disservice. Like she’s missing out on something.
The thought of working a 70 hour week makes me want to run away screaming. Even 40 hours is too much for me and I do not do it. Even though I have a career I love. I wouldn’t love it very long if I had to do it that much.
Said it in the comments on the blog about women missing out on funding for startups…My family will be my priority and i’ll be financially comfortable and that is ALL I want. Life is too short for me to spend it working my ass off. I’d much rather be experiencing it with those I love.
I own a home that pays for itself, own a nice sporty little car outright, have a wonderful extended family and a couple really good friends. I had a husband but that didn’t work out although I have found a super guy who I love and loves me. I travel to beautiful and fun places…Once I get to the point of having kids I WILL have it all. The more I think about it the more I realize it must be terribly unfulfilling to have an idea of “it all” that is completely impossible to achieve.
I also realize now why niether article really spoke to me. Because I CAN have it all. Everything I really want. Just not everything that everyone else seems to want. I wont even make an attempt at it.
helene 15
Interestingly, even those of us who don’t have children are not unaffected by this whole “home vs career” issue…. I m often asked WHY I don’t have children, as though I have somehow made an odd (not to say highly suspect) choice, and get the feeling some people automatically brqand me some sort of hard-nosed career woman because I haven’t reproduced. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth – although at 47 I now have a high paying job, I’ve never been madly interested in having a “career” as such – I don’t even consider that I have a “career”, more just a succession of varied jobs that have happened to land me where I am. Career aspirations were never a factor in my not having children, although a long period of job instability in my 30 probably played a part. Now that I am divorced, I do try to pay more attention to my career prospects – what choice do I have??! but I am often made to feel uncomfortable for being a childless divorced person, like there is something not quite right about me, and my situation must be the result of having the wrong priorities… Basically, life just happens, and you just have to handle what comes along as best you can.
Ruby 16
EMK wrote: “Most men want to work full-time. Most women don’t.”
I pretty much agree with your post except for this statement. Maybe I’m partly basing this on the people I know, but most of my friends with kids, whether married or single, want to work full-time, and all of my friends without kids, whether married or single, do also. The problem is that many women who do work full-time are also responsible for the lion’s share of child-rearing duties and house-hold chores for their entire family, which means that they are actually working MORE than 40 hours a week. Most people, regardless of gender, do not enjoy working that much. Perhaps what they are doing isn’t really considered work or even that important, and is still considered “women’s work.”
Evan Marc Katz 17
@Ruby – I quoted that from a study. It’s not my opinion. Thus you can’t disagree with it. I mean you can disagree with it, you’d just be disagreeing with a fact.
Most of what I do is based on observing what the majority of people want and telling others to adjust accordingly.
So, to repeat myself, I didn’t say that women aren’t entitled to do everything that men do. I said that the vast majority of men want to work full time and 58% of women don’t. As such, there are more men who can find women who are willing to sacrifice their careers to spend more time with family than women who can find men who are willing to do the same. And sure enough, real life backs up this observation.
Ruby 18
EMK #17
I actually found the study and read that paragraph. It says that “…married mothers are especially likely to prefer part-time work (58%)”. Something about your wording implies to me a much larger number of all women, however.
Only 59% of women are actually married when they have kids. 47% of women aged 15-44 don’t have kids at all. One in five women today remain childless. And many married women (haven’t found that percentage yet) don’t have kids. So 58% of married women with children would prefer to work part-time, but that is not such a large percentage of all women. Most women don’t have the luxury of not having to work.
Dagaz 19
What’s wrong with a society, where to have a successful career meaning to work 70hours per week? what is wrong in a society, where one should choose between career and children?
Helen 20
Ruby: good points. Let’s assume that of all women, 40% are both married and have children under age 18 (this seems like a pretty reasonable assumption). Then 58% of 40% is about 23% of all women. It is less than a quarter of all women. Not really a big proportion when you consider it.
Of course, I’m sure some of the remaining 77% also prefer to work part-time, but in any case that 58% statistic can’t be used to make broad sweeping statements about which gender should do more of the child care.
Evan Marc Katz 21
@Ruby and @Helen - you guys are going way off topic here.
This post was about having it all – specifically, having the time and desire to be a great full-time employee and a great mom. If you don’t want to work that hard, fine. If you don’t want kids, fine. If your kids are older, fine. None of that was what Slaughter was talking about.
I pointed out that 78% of fathers want to work full-time – which explains why it’s harder for women to find men who want to help out at home. And until more men want to work part-time – and women start respecting those men as men respect part-time women – it’s pretty much impossible for Helen’s 23% to “have it all”.
Those 23% of women are the only ones who are trying to have it all in the sense that the Slaughter and Gottlieb articles were discussing.
nathan 22
“until more men want to work part-time – and women start respecting those men as men respect part-time women – it’s pretty much impossible for Helen’s 23% to “have it all”.” Regardless of the numbers, Evan has an excellent point here. The pressure to be the main breadwinner is still present for many men. And furthermore, men who have modest salaries and more frugal lifestyles are often skipped over or seriously questioned as long term partners. As I said on another thread here, it’s really damaging to judge people primarily in terms of their net worth or earning potential.
Personally, I think American society isn’t set up for the vast majority of people to “have it all” in the sense Slaughter + Gottlieb are talking about. The middle class is rapidly disappearing, and more and more of us are working not for luxuries, but to make ends meet. We also as a whole have highly inflated “needs” lists, and think that being successful is mostly about accumulating the most stuff, having the biggest house and newest car, and generally working too much in order to have money that we end up burning on things that don’t make us happy. In other words, many have the wrong ideas about “success,” and they’re chasing those ideas in an economy that breeds that kind of success for fewer and fewer people.
Helen 23
EMK and nathan: the 23% represented an estimate of proportion of married women with children who want to work part-time. So no, this isn’t the proportion of women who want it all (because clearly they’re not having “it all” in terms of career), nor are they expecting their men to work part-time. But anyway.
The pressure for women to be domestic is just as strong as the pressure for men to be the main breadwinner. BOTH stereotypes and expectations should weaken substantially in the coming years – at least, that is what I hope, unless we regress.
nathan: even after adjusting for inflation, American households have on average much more discretionary monies than they did just a few decades ago; so if anything, the middle class is expanding. Does that make us happier, though? That is not so clear-cut. At least part of the reason for increased spending money is increasing numbers of women entering the workforce. I can’t speak for everyone, but for me at least, I’m much happier working than being a stay-at-home wife and mother. And for other women who enjoy work, I’d say our segment of society is much happier now than we would have been a few decades ago, forced through multiple pressures to give up work and stay home. I can’t say for other segments of society, though – men, women who want to stay home, etc.
Barentt | LoveHack 24
It is only natural for a man to want to take the lead and be the ‘bread winner’, for this written in the bible (1 Timothy 5:8) as a requirement to be husband.
And I’d rather struggle to make ends meet than compromise with having to work more and spending time with my family…
It is sad how making money and the illusion of ‘having it all’ is an often unnoticed disability in many families today.
Mia 25
There’s some book out now, that I was skimming in the bookstore, about how this idea that the 20s are a time to do whatever you want, and that 30 is the new 20, is really damaging to people. Basically, people don’t understand that a failure to plan when younger means they’ll be trying to do a bunch of things in a very narrow period of time later on, like go to law school, find a husband, have a kid … Then, there are the women who are unbelievably foolish (no offense, a lot of the types that are Evan’s clients or post here) in that they are in their mid-30s and want marriage and kids, but are still chasing bad boys, or passed up great relationship opportunities when they were younger, or focused on their career to the exclusion of dates, and then find themselves facing much slimmer odds of being able to have a child when they’re close to 40, if they can even get a guy.
Plus, I get the sense that a lot of really career-driven women aren’t TRULY interested in being maternal and raising children, but having kids is something on their checklist. So that’s another reason they find themselves run ragged trying to “have it all” – do they even WANT it all, or do they just think they’re supposed to?
I think even if a single woman under 30 isn’t sure she wants to be the 100 percent career woman, or try to juggle that and kids, or whatever, she should still date around as though she were looking for an ltr (not carelessly discarding good men, not chasing chemistry and looks), so that she’s at least exercising some options. Maybe she’ll decide eventually that that life is not for her, but you don’t really know unless you spend your 20s dedicated to your career AND regularly going on dates with men to get a sense of what’s going to work for you in your 30s when these “have it all” issues really intensify.
David T 26
“You can do anything, but you can’t do everything.”
Helen 27
Barentt, that passage in I Timothy refers to anyone of either sex, not just men. And it is an exhortation to care for needy relatives. The Bible never discourages women from working and providing for their families. Take a look at Proverbs 31.
Stacy 28
Evan: This post was about having it all – specifically, having the time and desire to be a great full-time employee and a great mom
You CAN have it all if you ignore somebody else’s idea of what “being a great mom” means. And, for that matter, what having “a great career” means too. Who said you can’t be a great mom unless you drive your kids to 5 playdates a week in addition to so called “soccer”, “ballet” and other such activities, or change their dipers 10 times a day? Who says you can’t have a great career unless you spend 70 hrs a week in the office? This is nonsense.
Goldie 29
@ Helen, I’m kind of in the middle on this. I like what I do; work was a great creative outlet when the kids were very young; but I really, REALLY dislike having to work crazy long hours so I never see my family, or being on call 24×7 so I cannot dedicate my nights and weekends to my family, etc. Besides, I have hobbies outside of work. I definitely like working outside of home, but only to a certain level. If my job demands start to exceed that level, I change jobs. But I agree with you that it is more about applying your talents than it is (as is often the assumption) about making money. I wish people would stop saying that the only reason a woman works outside of home is because she needs my shoes or a bigger TV. We are people too, with brains, that we don’t mind putting to good use.
Re the original article, there’s a point I wanted to make and that is — very few people (men or women) have Mrs. Slaughter’s skills, drive, and energy. What she is writing about does not even apply to most of us. It’s not like, if you let one mother work for Hillary Clinton, all others will do the same — personally I wouldn’t want a demanding job like that, nor am I capable of doing it! She is an exception. And I agree with Helen that she should not be beating herself up for not being a generic, suburban mom — she doesn’t have to be one. Her sons look pretty happy and well-adjusted in the photos, and I am sure they can manage themselves really well on their own — after all, they’ve got the genes for that.
Another thing I wanted to bring up — in my opinion, for a driven, energetic woman like Mrs.Slaughter, or one of the company CEOs that we discussed a few posts back, having a woman like that dedicate most of her time and energy to her children, in many cases, will be bad for the children. How do I know? Because my Mom was that woman. Back in her time and geographical location, she couldn’t have a high-powered career, but she did really well compared to other mothers around her. At home however, my mom was a helicopter parent before that term was even invented. She never got home before 5:30 and she still micromanaged me every step of the way. If she stayed at home, or worked part-time, I swear I wouldn’t have made it out with my sanity intact! The way I see it, if you have a laid-back woman of slightly-above-average abilities like myself stay at home with kids, she’ll spend some time with the kids, some time on her hobbies, and have fun along the way. If you make a perfectionist, hard-working, CEO stay home with kids, she’ll approach her kids as if they are her new job, with the same dedication and the same intense demands of immaculate performance. She will run these poor kids into the ground. So I’m saying, live and let live. There’s one type of family that works best for me, another for a stay-at-home mom next door, yet another for Mrs.Slaughter or a startup CEO. What works for me, would not work for them, and vice versa. Why do we think that everyone has to fit into the same mold?
So, no, you can’t “have it all”, if by “having it all” you mean being yourself and at the same time being the kind of suburban mother that gets the approval of her neighbors. Good news, you do not need to, “have it all” in this sense. Who gives a rat’s ass about what your neighbors think of how you run your family?!
One last thing — I believe the large percentage of American women wanting to stay at home or work part-time, is cultural. That’s what they are used to seeing around them, growing up. They were raised to think that a stay-at-home mom is normal, and a working mother, a deviation. This was not the case in my home country. My mother and grandmother both worked full-time (grandmother, after her husband’s death, worked several jobs), as did everyone else around them. To work or not to work, wasn’t even up for discussion. Then again, we had long maternity leaves and cheap government-subsidized daycare, something that’s sorely missing around here. If I were given a choice between leaving my job and putting a six-week old baby in a daycare center, I honestly don’t know what I would do, it’s pretty brutal! I think the short maternity leaves, expensive daycare, etc all reflect the fact that it is still not socially acceptable for mothers to work outside of home in the US. Very sad.
nathan 30
Helen, about the middle class. 50 million + Americans are currently without health insurance. Hard to know what will truly happen with the ACA now that the Supreme Court has decided, but that’s just the uninsured. It doesn’t include the millions with lousy coverage. Over 1.5 million Americans declared bankruptcy in 2011, the majority due to an inability to pay medical bills. Between 2007 and 2010, nearly 3 million homes were repossessed by banks. The reported national unemployment rate is 8.2 %, and hovers near 11% in states like California and Nevada. You can easily add 2-3% to those numbers, given that many aren’t in the system, but are still out of work. The average student debt for a 2011 grad: $25,000. I could go on, but as far as I’m concerned, that discretionary income average is really top heavy.
Goldie 31
@ Mia #
“Plus, I get the sense that a lot of really career-driven women aren’t TRULY interested in being maternal and raising children, but having kids is something on their checklist.”
Yep. This is exactly what my mom told me once. She had me because she felt she was supposed to have a kid. Then she refused to have anymore kids because she felt more than one child would have been bad for her career. I’m totally cool with it, hey my oldest was a surprise baby, so who am I to judge. Just writing this to confirm that you’re 100% correct on this one.
My opinion, if a woman makes a huge difference by what she does, more power to her. If I’d never had kids and thrown myself into my job, probably the most I would’ve achieved is raise some corporation’s stock price by a couple dollars for a couple weeks — not worth it. If, on the other hand, I had the potential to cure cancer or solve world hunger, I’d probably have approached my family-career balance differently.
Rachael 32
@stacy- you kind of have to change diapers when they need to be changed, bit aside from that I agree! My career in nursing is very fulfilling and I consider myself successful. I work 25 hrs a week. Like I said before I will and do have everything I want. I get that this is about having “it all” but if we start to take that in the literal sense it just gets even more ludicrous! what do these people want?? The high paying, and apparently ridiculously demanding career, spouse, kids, mansion, their own business, to author a book, extensive travel, their own tv show, a ferrari, a boat, an airplane, a private island, a perfect face/body, recognition as an artist, a castle, the ENTIRE WORLD? I mean…C’mon!! Of course no one can have “it all”. Some people can’t even meet their own basic needs.
Helen 33
Goldie 29: not surprisingly, I agree with all your points. Especially the point that many women ARE driven to follow challenges and passions, just as men are (just as humans are, really); and forcing her to stay at home will only make her turn her energies onto her children, with possible negative results.
Mia 25: I think it would do you (and the author of the book you mention) good to be a little easier on other people. People can plan all they want in their 20s, yet that still won’t guarantee them everything they want or expect. LIFE HAPPENS. I’m sure you know the saying “Sh_t happens.” It’s so true, despite the best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men. Of course, not just sh_t happens in life; many good things happen as well. The point is that we can’t control them, most of the time. Personally I’ve seen no evidence that those who carefully plan in their 20s have better outcomes a decade or two later than those who take their 20s to explore and allow serendipity.
And I wouldn’t call those who aren’t married in their mid-30s “unbelievably foolish.” Relationships are one of those areas in which you really can’t plan and organize down to the last letter, I’m afraid to say. You can improve your odds, as Evan tries to teach others to do, but in the end, so much of it boils down to sheer dumb luck. Understanding these things – and living a little longer – may help you to go a little easier on others.
Heather 34
@ Helene:
Being a childless divorced woman myself, I get that often. People think (or assume) that I want a high pressure, hot career and nothing else. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve dated men who were always so busy with work, or were gone alot because of being military contractors sent overseas to war zones, and I learned that all that money, wasn’t worth it to me. I didn’t like not having a guy around.
Also, having worked in the healthcare field for most of my adult life, I often get, “Oh man, you should marry a doctor!” Ummmmm….no. People don’t realize that doctors work INSANE hours and often sacrifice family, couple, and alone time to take care of patients, and work. Sure, doctors here in the US make a good deal of money, but to me, the other drawbacks aren’t worth it to me.
Like EMK said, people will do what they want to do. And I don’t want to marry some workaholic who won’t pay attention to me. Heck, I used to even just bypass a guy’s profile when he’d mention that he was “very busy and didn’t have a whole lot of free time.” Next! If he doesn’t have much time now, he won’t have much time for me in a relationship, so why bother. People can want to work crazy hours, have a crazy career, etc. etc. That’s fine. And I can want to not date them, and date someone who will make time for me.
Mia 35
Helen, I didn’t mean to sound harsh and judgmental – and trust me, I’m just as hard on myself as I am on others at times. There is nothing wrong with being mid30s and unmarried at 35 and I could very well be in that position. I only meant that if a WOman knows she wants kids but spends her 20s chasing alphas, ditching good men, and being “too busy” for a relationship,there’s a real failure to plan ahead that will catch up to her. I know all too many guys and gals 30 and under who still look at these decisions as something to be made way off in the future , and they don’t even TRY to understand how their current decision making will play out in the 39s/40s.
Helen 36
Mia: this isn’t meant to be an argument with you, but again, I see no evidence that women who “try” harder to get a man so that she can have babies are more successful in landing men than women who are more laid-back about it. It doesn’t matter if she’s in her 20s or 30s; a woman trying too hard to find a baby-daddy gives off an air of desperation that fails to attract men.
That is the funny thing about relationships - they’re different from other things we might strive for. If you strive to do well in your job, you’re more likely to succeed than someone who slacks more. If you strive to learn calculus or physics or a sport or musical instrument, you’ll do better than someone who puts in less effort. But relationships require two people, and no one likes to be the focused object of another person’s striving or attentions. It feels very uncomfortable.
That’s why, paradoxically, the best thing to do in relationships is to relax and not strive too hard. Relaxing also allows you to become more open to what the other person is thinking and feeling, which gives you useful cues about how to interact with them.
Tom 37
You’re right Helen that luck plays a huge part in it but Mia has a point; many women waste years chasing men out of their league. I find it usually happens to women who are successful in most things in life such as college, career etc, but aren’t quite attractive enough to get the man they really want. Some of them use their feminine wiles to catch him for a while, but it never lasts. I know a few of these women and they just keep getting hurt again and again!
Two of Us Dating Service 38
Wow, I have to agree. Growing up I always wanted to be a highly successful career woman, but after I saw how hard it was for my friends to raise children and work, my aspirations have changed a bit. I am all about equality but I’m also very realistic. Definitely can’t have it all.
starthrower68 39
I had aspirations of this big radio career in a major market. When I cried after having to go back to work when my oldest child was born, that nipped that in the bud real quick. I’ve HAD to work; I will have to continue working. I accept that and don’t complain. But my heart has ALWAYS been with my kids.
Joe 40
@ Tom: many men also waste years chasing women out of their league!
Tom 41
@ Joe
“Many men also waste years chasing women out of their league!”
I fully agree. My friends and I are absolutely guilty of this; we’re ordinary blokes but we want spectacular women and we will ‘waste’ as many years as necessary to get them (I know this is unreasonable / unrealistic). I don’t think men mind taking their time as much though?
Erica 42
How on earth does working 70 hours a week qualify as “having it all”???
To me that means having extremely little.
Peter 43
Mostly from an earlier post
Isn’t the high octane career the punishment for a woman? Men need to display achievement to get a mate. Attractive women don’t generally marry the janitor. Why do woman need to push so hard? What, a few exceptionally gifted creative talents apart, is the point? Vanity?
In the 1970′s the banks forced women into the workforce by giving loans based on the incomes of both members of a marriage. Enough couples got greedy about a bigger house that all women had to go out to work to afford the about same housing as a single earner could once afford. The same changes in finance happened in Europe too. There is US based research (a lady professor at Harvard) demonstrating that after the increase in house prices generated by dual income mortgates, the need for two cars, the need for child care and various strange insurances Americans need for health care, dual income US families are worse off in terms of disposable income (although their houses are bigger) and more vulnerable to bankruptcy through unemployment than single income US families in the early 1970′s. By observation, similar things happened in the UK. The finance industry has been the main gainer from women entering the workforce.
Rachel 44
A lot of men nowadays expect women to balance work and child care. Women are seen as lazy spongers if they want to take time out to look after children.
Julia 45
Peter, if you think careers are about something as basic as trying to get a mate, you’ve essentially reduced us to animals. Humans are the most complex species on earth, we don’t do things merely to reproduce. So why would a woman want a challenging career? Well if she is exceptionally talented and intelligent, nothing else would challenge her. Believe it or not women have both brains and needs outside of child rearing.
Helen 46
Julia 45: Exactly. Sometimes people work hard because they love it, and because it gives them endless energy and satisfaction. Not because they are trying to impress anyone else. This is true of both women and men.
Peter 47
Julia/Helen
Debt drives most people of the middle sort in Western societies to work. It’s hard to keep workers on Russian farms. They have their own small plots given to them when the Soviet Union broke up. So, once they’ve built up a year or two’s cash wages, they quit. They have food and some small cash generation (usually a dozen or so pigs) on hand. The saved wages are a lump sum for emergencies. Double the pay and they still won’t come back. Most countries without a system of debt have this problem in rural areas. Where I live in the UK, there are huge numbers of families on the 3rd generation of benefits. The husband is the state’; the sperm donor is the very good looking one man in 20. I remember, in a barbers shop being riveted as one of these studs described his 9 children with 5 women by the age of 24. Without economic status worth more than the UK’s generous benefits system, the missing 4 men get to be very proficient with PlayStations in their mothers’ back bedrooms. Without the opportunity to out earn the stud, the missing 4 have no merit in female eyes. America’s better for men. Less competition from welfare .
However, I completely agree with Julia that a woman of exceptional intelligence and/or talent should not face barriers to her career progress but to excel, she should expect to call herself “Miss” like most (4 out of 6) of the women I dated at University 40 years ago. Nevertheless, the core case remains. Men seek status to improve their mating chances and the mating chances of their children. Status is not a female need so far as dating and mating are concerned. Self fulfilment for the exceptionally able – maybe. For the ordinary and career stressed, absolutely not.
I personally want (have got) a woman with the economic independence to walk out. Then, If I keep her it means she wants to stay. An interesting job is a plus too, although intelligence or talent is better. I’m at the high end of brainy. I walk away from women who don’t have the brains or the dancing skills or the artistic talent however hot they look. (Education is no substitute. Mugwump in British English means people educated beyond their intellect. I prefer the uneducated clever to mugwumps. If a woman “gets” me after two sentences, she’s hot). Add good looks and that’s enough for a sex partner to pass a decade with (not actually my MO, I sometimes think that I am the last church going puritan of my generation in the UK but I do see it happen. I warn my daughter against it). However, a focus on children and home is far more critical for a wife.
I’ve suggested in another thread on here that many careers are driven by parents’ ambitions rather the the person pursing the career. There is very often no limit to the demands of imposed ambition. Neither man nor woman can have it all in such a respect. But, if a woman “fails” at her career, she still has a valid life as a mother, even as a wife without children. A man who fails at his career also fails at fatherhood and probably marriage in this age of divorce. The choice of women for an also ran male is rather limited. Not many CEO’s or successful small businessmen marry 250 lb check out operators from Tesco/Walmart. Men have fewer options than women. ”All” isn’t on the agenda. Being denied “All” isn’t oppression by the patriarchy (I am getting quite old. I haven’t been offered membership yet?), being denied “All” is a consequence of the luxury of choice. Men are denied “All”; they have to chase “It”. One shot.
So, if wanting it all to the point of disappointment is driven by ambition without limit (and by what else?) no one who wants it all will be happy.
I can ramble on for ever.
Peter 48
@Julia. I’m with the late Stephen Jay Gould on the (non) hierarchy of species. Species are leaves at an equal distance from the centre of a bush not bricks in a pyramid. I understand your point but I am such a mega Liberal (in the US sense) that I don’t agree with it. Evolution has acted on everything in one huge ecological bundle.