The Obligatory Conservative-Feminist Post on “Having It All.”

by Little Miss Attila on June 24, 2012

The notion of “having it all” is a crock of shit. Women can’t have it all any more than can men.

Life is hard; why does anyone over the age of 16 need to have this explained?

Conservatism is about individuals and families figuring out what is best for them. Equity feminism is also about individuals and families figuring out what is best for them. There is no major conflict here.

Neither conservatives nor feminists should be placing undue pressure on people in terms of where their work-family balances lie, though conservatives will want to remind everyone that the country needs to be populated and children need to be raised. At the same time, feminists will remind us that discarding the insights and contributions of 51% of our population is not the brightest thing we could do.

This is not complicated.

• Cassandra proves once more that she is the voice of common sense in the blogosphere;

• Julie Gerstein in The Frisky points out that “having it all” is a stupid notion, and then makes a bunch of random remarks about the wickedness of capitalism that gave me a headache;

• Ann-Marie Slaughter imagines I want to read a multiple-thousand-word article on how society must change to make it easier for privileged chicks to lug briefcases around without taking time away from child-rearing, which leads me to assume that the notion is to pre-clone all female children so that each career woman will have a clone-slave to do all the work she doesn’t want to, thereby affording her the chance to live two lifetimes rather than the traditional one.

Not having had the foresight to clone myself while I was young, I elect to eat fresh pineapple instead of wringing my hands about how darned difficult things are in the first world these days, and to save time by not plowing through multiple-thousand-page essays on the challenges presented by my double-x chromosomes.

{ 2 trackbacks }

“To be a stay-at-home mom is a privilege” at Haemet
June 24, 2012 at 4:45 pm
“To be a stay-at-home mom is a privilege” at Haemet
June 24, 2012 at 4:45 pm

{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }

Roxeanne de Luca June 24, 2012 at 5:13 pm

Ann-Marie Slaughter’s piece just made me laugh. I thought that it would be semi-relevant to my demographic – highly educated, professional women – but realised too late (i.e. about a thousand words into the thing) that I’m not up to snuff, since I won’t be running the free world anytime soon.

Heavens, chickies, if you want to be a lawyer and have kids, work in a firm that involves 50-hour per week work, not 80 hour weeks. Work in a city that isn’t Manhattan or Washington. Live some place that doesn’t involve two hours of commuting every day.

Interestingly, do you think that any of these snobby, blue-state women would ever ask how Sarah Palin managed five kids and a governorship?

Reply

Mike June 24, 2012 at 6:35 pm

Jeez, you were right. Reading Slaughter’s piece gave me a headache after about 1500 words, so I quit reading it, but I got the gist. Unless I read them wrong, my impression was that Slaughter and that “Frisky” woman both think capitalism and the free market economy are bad and everything would be just hunky-dory if only we had a woman for President and all the Senators and Representatives were all women. Oh, and all the CEO’s of corporations need to be women also.

Don’t get me wrong…I think if a woman can balance a career and raising a good moral family, all the power to her. But for these high powered women to basically turn their noses up at women who made the choice to be SAHM’s instead of having a career or job is really hurting their cause. I’m just sayin’ from my perspective.

Reply

Little Miss Attila June 26, 2012 at 3:34 pm

The second wave of feminism was all about career choice and personal freedom. Now the radicals want to cancel all that out . . . no, no, no. I didn’t march for totalitarianism when I was a child, and I’m not about to start.

Reply

Micha Elyi August 12, 2012 at 6:39 pm

[I]f only we had a woman for President and all the Senators and Representatives were all women. Oh, and all the CEO’s of corporations need to be women also.

Don’t fret that feminists would stop complaining in the fem-topian world of Slaughter and that ‘Frisky’ woman” you describe. Why? Because daycare would be $1000 per day per child (minimum) and an oil change would be five hundred bucks. Plus, they’d be whining that after the feminization of high political and corporate offices those jobs aren’t respected anymore.

Reply

Morgan K Freeberg July 2, 2012 at 2:35 pm

I don’t understand the problem, I’m afraid. Is “having it all” possible? It depends on the individual’s choices and the individual’s potential to succeed. That is not to deny there’s an enormous expenditure of energy taking place when a woman aspires to succeed as a business leader and wife+mother at the same time. But some women can manage to make them work, and who can make a legitimate claim to deny them this victory? My own mother took enormous pride in it.

The meaning of the phrase “having it all” seems, to me, to have been poorly defined for a very long time now, perhaps since the first time it was ever used. At a high level, from what I can see, it means “no [unnecessary] trade-offs.” Well, there’s something to THAT, certainly, and there is a problem with lack of respect being paid to it. Why does the message have to be crafted to fit the lowest common denominator, among women, and then disseminated from some central point, setting the bar slightly high but not too high that someone might not be able to reach it? That seems, to me, to be the source of the silliness. Honor the individual; some women are capable of more than other women, and it is what it is.

Just my two cents.

Reply

Dan from Squirrel Hill September 5, 2012 at 10:22 pm

I read Slaughter’s article. She is a spoiled whiny crybaby. Even though she has multiple degrees from prestigious universities, teaches at an Ivy League college, has worked at a high level position in the federal government, is published regularly in print and online, appears regularly on TV and radio, gives dozens of speeches every year, and is in the process of writing a book, she complains that she isn’t doing enough. I could not handle the stress of doing even 10% of what she has done, and I’m male. And yet, I don’t feel that I need to “have it all.” I’m happy just as I am.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: