SUZANNE VENKER writes at Time that corporate parental leave policies create an illusion of balancing parenthood and child-rearing:

As a society, we’d do better to acknowledge the fact that women (and men, for that matter, though in a different way) change as a result of having children, and often do care less about work. And what’s wrong with that? Isn’t that why people have babies? To make life more meaningful? And, dare I say it, less focused on work?

Offering new parents full pay for up to one year is akin to putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. The needs of children are huge, and they do not end at one year. On the contrary, they just begin. Taking a year off of work to meet those needs merely scratches the surface.

Venker goes on to say:

None of this is to suggest that women can’t have it all over the course of their lifetimes. It’s only to say that choices and concessions must be made. It’s also to say that no parental leave policy, even the one at Netflix, can possibly solve a problem as monumental as the anguished pull parents feel between home and work. 

But her words do suggest that women can’t have it all, even over the course of their lifetimes. Where did this idea of having it all come from anyway? No one in the world has it all.

— Comments —

Bruce B. writes:

My company incorporates the phrase “work-life balance” into its official policies and documents. Nobody says this but it’s largely because of working mothers. We also have official “Mother’s Rooms” where women can go to pump breast milk.  We make lethal military hardware but we’re thoughtful enough to have mother’s milking rooms.

You ask: “Where did this idea of having it all come from anyway? No one in the world has it all.”

I’m not an expert on women’s psychology but I suspect it’s in women’s nature to want more than what they have, no matter how much they have. I have read evidence supporting this in the Christian Manosphere and my wife has indicated that this is true. I have also witnessed some personal examples in women around me that suggests that this is the case.  So I think the “you can have it all” myth was an irresistible temptation for most women. I don’t know if it was women or men who authored this myth but men certainly bear responsibility for allowing this to happen.

Laura writes:

There isn’t the same temptation for men. They can’t have it all. They can’t bear children or be mothers.

It’s impossible to judge how much by nature women are prone to this myth. They have undergone intense propaganda from all sides for many decades now. The idea of having it all came from a very clever effort to undermine the family and create division.

Harvey writes:

Perhaps the question to ask is, “Why would anyone ‘want it all’ ?”

Laura writes:

Yeah, exactly. All isn’t even all.

Loving one man, raising his children, trying to conform one’s life to God’s will — now that’s all.

Camille C. writes:

In response to why women fall for the temptation to “have it all”.  Sounds eerily similar to the words Eve heard while living in paradise: “you will be like God”.

Laura writes:

Yes.

Feminism began in the Garden of Eden.

Abigail writes:

Laura writes:

Traditional marriage and motherhood are definitely not the only worthy choices. Women who choose not to marry and dedicate themselves to some important vocation may be pursuing a higher course. The Church has always viewed consecrated celibacy as a higher state than marriage.

As for the “having it all,” it has become such a familiar catch phrase, it is impossible, I believe, to trace its origins but its popularity comes from the ideas promoted by cultural revolutionaries, who insist not only that women can have it all but that they should be aided in having it all by government and business. Many women are now forced to have it all. Feminism stands ever in defense of capitalistic greed and against the interests of the middle class and workers.

The idea that Superwoman was invented by adversaries of feminism is a bald-faced lie. Gloria has promoted the idea, no matter how much she denies it for political reasons. Feminist public figures often pay token lip service to those who stay home. In charitable moments, they consider motherhood a lovely full-time hobby. Latter-day feminists say, “Well, yes, you can’t have it all. If you want to be with your children you are going to have to give things up,” but, in their perennial callousness to the interests of children, they will never say the mother’s presence is necessary in the home and constantly undermine the role of the male provider. They will never say the work of the mother should be defended against pressures from the capitalistic, consumerist marketplace which seeks to undercut the interests of labor and the strength of the family.

Laura writes:

By the way, I don’t really believe in this feminists vs. anti-feminists dialectic you mention.

Most women have interests in common. Most women are the pawns of a war against women (and against social order in general) promoted by occult forces and international financiers in high places who now have control of all the major institutions in our society. This division among women is part of the plan. This endless “Mommy War” is part of the plan.

I have never felt ill will toward married mothers who work outside the home, however much I may disagree with some of them, and the idea that “anti-feminists” do feel ill will toward “working” mothers is yet another clever propaganda ploy. I do feel immense ill will toward those who are pushing women away from the home and demeaning the importance of the home and the needs of children.

Abigail writes:

I suppose another problem with the phrase “having it all” is that it is a bit vague.   The reason I think it is an absurd concept is that it often seems to refer to the notion that women can play the role and experience all the joys of traditional motherhood AND pursue paid employment or a high-flying career outside the home on the same  basis as a man at the same time.  But you can’t be in two places at once, nor should you try.  In this sense, men certainly “don’t have it all” either.  Indeed, the difficulties workaholic fathers have in relating to their  children is also well-known, as described so well in the lyrics to the Harry Chapin song “Cat’s in the Cradle.”   All of us who work outside the home in our society — whether we are male or female – face the same problems and the same sacrifices in performing our duties both at home and in the outside world. No human being on earth can be extremely dedicated to one without the other suffering.   It is unfair to all of us of both sexes to frame the difficulty of “having it all” as a problem faced only by women.  The problem is that women still face strong cultural and religious pressure to sacrifice their role outside the home in favor of their parenting responsibilties, and men have even stronger pressure to sacrifice their role in the home in favor of their work in the wider world.

Of course, if “having it all” means simply the ability to have both a family life and a career/paid employment, then of course, I am in favor of both women and men having the opportunity to “have it all.”  I don’t accept the model you describe the Catholic Church as promoting whereby women must  be celibate and eschew family life in order to pursue vocations other than traditional marriage and motherhood.   But I still hold that “having it all” is a ridiculous and condescending phrase to describe spending one’s prime on both family and work responsibilities – and I also don’t think that’s what the phrase refers to.  Generally when used in the media, it seems to describe some mythical state of combining domestic goddesshood with a fast track career — a state of perfectionism that I am not sure any real women actually aspire to.

I believe the term “anti-feminist” is fair to describe people who oppose women’s social equality and autonomy.  That said, I agree with you that the alleged division of women into two equal, competing camps described as “the Mommy Wars” is too rigid and simplistic a point of view, and is in fact, an overblown media creation. I certainly never meant to espouse such a concept.

Laura writes:

I suppose another problem with the phrase “having it all” is that it is a bit vague.   The reason I think it is an absurd concept is that it often seems to refer to the notion that women can play the role and experience all the joys of traditional motherhood AND pursue paid employment or a high-flying career outside the home on the same  basis as a man at the same time.  But you can’t be in two places at once, nor should you try.

Absolutely.

In this sense, men certainly “don’t have it all” either.  Indeed, the difficulties workaholic fathers have in relating to their  children is also well-known, as described so well in the lyrics to the Harry Chapin song “Cat’s in the Cradle.”

Yes, but a man who is chained to a job and also has a wife at home faces much less conflict because he knows his children are loved while he is gone.

All of us who work outside the home in our society — whether we are male or female – face the same problems and the same sacrifices in performing our duties both at home and in the outside world.

That would be true if men and women were the same. They are not.

It is unfair to all of us of both sexes to frame the difficulty of “having it all” as a problem faced only by women. 

It is unfair both to men and women to deny the very obvious differences between them. Women prefer to care for the home and children; they are also better at it.

 The problem is that women still face strong cultural and religious pressure to sacrifice their role outside the home in favor of their parenting responsibilties, and men have even stronger pressure to sacrifice their role in the home in favor of their work in the wider world. 

A man does not sacrifice his role by providing for his family. The cultural and religious pressure women face is complemented by the internal pressure they themselves feel. They want to raise their children well and create domestic order. They face strong cultural and ideological pressure to make it in the world too.

Of course, if “having it all” means simply the ability to have both a family life and a career/paid employment, then of course, I am in favor of both women and men having the opportunity to “have it all.”

The real issue is what society values and how it supports the cultural institution of motherhood. Today, it values worldly success far more than home-making and far more than the mother’s moral and spiritual roles in the home and community.

I don’t accept the model you describe the Catholic Church as promoting whereby women must  be celibate and eschew family life in order to pursue vocations other than traditional marriage and motherhood. 

Then you are out of touch with reality. Over time women collectively lose the fidelity, support and strength of men when they follow the model you support.

Generally when used in the media, it seems to describe some mythical state of combining domestic goddesshood with a fast track career — a state of perfectionism that I am not sure any real women actually aspire to.

Most people just see it as combining home and employment so that both are managed well. Unfortunately, even women who are pursuing part-time careers often have years and years of their time as mothers and homemakers drained away because of the intense competition in their chosen fields and the need for credentials and training. There is a frantic-ness created by the lack of peaceful, orderly homes and the interior life. People constantly talk about how busy they are and the many complications created by this busy life. It’s a model that is glorified and yet creates a great deal of strife, evident in the low fertility that accompanies this way of life. Work is over-valued and made the center of identity. But I don’t intend to convince you of the negative side of all that because we are approaching the issue under entirely different first principles. In short, women sacrifice the world to be the heart of the home and the helpers of men, who are worthy of their help. It’s not possible to have it all. The economy that makes this possible for the middle class has been decimated.

Women have always engaged in paid activity. It’s a question of how much it is valued above their other contributions.

I believe the term “anti-feminist” is fair to describe people who oppose women’s social equality and autonomy.  

I believe the term “feminist” is fair to describe people who favor child neglect in society at large and the political exploitation of women through manipulative flattery and the devaluing of their greatest strengths.

Bruce writes:

Abigail wrote: “The phrase “having it all” is used primarily by those who would mock and scold women for any goals they may have besides traditional marriage and motherhood.”

If it’s used to mock and scold women, it would be used to mock and scold women who have goals that are in addition to (not besides) goals of traditional marriage and motherhood. That’s the point of the phrase “having it all.”

There’s a fairly new way that women I work with “have it all.” They make dogs and cats (and sometimes even loathesome creatures like bearded lizards) their children. They have family portrait type pictures at their desk with their “children.” You can even get their picture with Santa Claus now or have a pet play date in a well fenced area. And the “grandparents” seem fine with it – they have “I love my grand-dog” and “I love my grand-cat” bumper stickers and they’ll baby sit when you need a romantic weekend away. So you see Laura, you can have it all. You missed out by going the traditional route.

Laura writes:

I saw a woman in a fancy hotel bar recently who was on a date with her dog.

She was an attractive, thirty-something woman. I bet she works long and grueling hours at her career and then comes home to her dog, who poses few complications.

In a way, I don’t blame her. She probably knows she can’t have it all.

Laura E. writes:

Regarding the proposition that women have always been tempted to want more, I agree with some of your correspondents that this seems ingrained. This understanding of a woman’s nature is taught outside Christianity as well.

Apparently Muhammed, founder of Islam, told his followers that he had seen hell-fire and that hell was filled with more women than men. This, he said, was because the women were not appreciative of the good that was done for them, particularly by their husbands, and that they always wanted more. The truth of that idea, though not of that religion, always stuck with me.

Mary writes:

Abigail wrote: “Why do we never hear about men ‘having it all?’ Because there is no cultural movement or force dedicated to scolding men for their career aspirations.”

Let’s face it, “having it all” has always meant to assure a woman that her children will never suffer because of her career; that no woman has to curtail professional aspirations when children arrive, nor should she decide against having children if she wants a career; that she can do both. Since men can’t carry babies in their non-existent wombs for nine months and give birth to and breast feed young children, who will then rely heavily and for years on their unique gift of motherhood inspired by the essential blood bond between mother and child, well then, no, men would not logically be the focus of any cultural movement dedicated to scolding them for their career aspirations.

Abigail wrote: “…So you see, the phrase was never a summary of actual feminist thought, but rather a slogan designed by corporate public relations workers to sell a self-help book to the masses…”

Perhaps Abigail could direct us to the aspects of feminism that don’t agree with the idea of having it all. The media is certainly filled with tales of female corporate stars and their families who have it all and then some. What exactly was Sheryl Sandberg’s bestselling book promoting if not this very concept? The tiny voices saying women cannot have it all are completely drowned out by the cacophony and bring to mind the Horton Hears a Who tale.

On Steinem and Helen Gurley Brown: Steinem was childless (as was de Beauvoir, et al), so “having it all” was perhaps not her main focus – that seemed rather to be radical female autonomy, as evidenced by her famous likening of a woman’s need for a man to that of a fish needing a bicycle. But the promotion of her pet cause certainly benefited from the concept.

Helen Gurley Brown – ugh! (shudder). Back in the eighties a friend of mine would occasionally buy Cosmopolitan magazine and, idiot that I was back then, I would read it. Looking back it was (and still is) an exercise in the corruption of the female psyche. I won’t get into the deviant content. But today the covers alone of “Cosmo” on the grocery line make me shudder and shoo my kids away. It’s the promotion of voluntary sex slavery and I’m surprised by feminists who don’t see this. HGB was no friend to women.

Bruce writes:

You wrote:

“I bet she works long and grueling hours at her career and then comes home to her dog, who poses few complications.”

True. Pets die before you have to go through complicated things like acne, teenage mood swings, dating, catechism and first communion, etc. with them.

Abigail writes:

I think we are at the end of the road for much of the discussion because, as we’ve established in other threads, we will never agree on the nature of men and women, what women allegedly prefer, and what constitutes appropriate care for children.  (By the way, my definition of what anti-feminists think was not meant to be snide, and I did not believe that you would find it insulting.)

You have, I think, hit the nail on the head when you said, “The real issue is how society values and how it supports the cultural institution of motherhood.”  But the only model for such support put forward by social conservatives that I have seen has been the coercion of women. [Laura writes: I’m sorry to interpolate here, but it’s too much work to have to reproduce every point. Anyway, I am not suggesting that anyone be coerced into marrying. All social models involve limitations and pressures. Right now, many women are pressured into delaying marriage and into taking on massive educational debt. Men are pressured to remain in jobs they don’t like. You know, life is tough.] Social conservatives want a return to a world in which reliable contraception is unavailable or heavily discouraged.  [It’s more important to create human beings than pursue happiness.] And you yourself have argued for a return to a world in which employers discriminate in hiring in favor of men for most lucrative and powerful positions in order to “reinforce family life.”  (I am thinking of your post entitled, “Why We Must Discriminate.”) [Coercion already exists. Right now, men are actively discriminated against in many fields.]

Back when I was born, my mother’s choice to serve at home full-time as a mother and homemaker was the most viable option available to her, and thus motherhood in that sense was “supported” through the limitations society placed on her, rather than through any positive incentive (other than my inherent lovableness, which I really wouldn’t overrate).  My mother had only a high school education, because the college funds in her family were reserved for her brother.  Additionally, my mother had only the limited job options available to most ordinary women of her day — secretary, teacher, nurse.  She worked for years as a secretary but found herself terminated from her position when she married – a common practice back then.  She could have chosen not to marry, but back then, spinsters were generally viewed as objects of pity and again, her only options for support were relatively low-wage work compared to what was available to a man of similar background. [Unmarried women were not always considered objects of pity. The Catholic Church believes the consecrated unmarried woman has made a higher choice than the married woman.] Society was structured such that a woman’s best hope for material comfort and social respectability was to become a man’s dependent, and stay home raising “his” children (as you put it). [Again, there have been times when unmarried women did all kinds of things through the great charitable institutions of Christian society. However, I know you would look down on what they did because they were not paid. They possessed a spirit of charity and self-sacrifice. Women love to give of themselves. That doesn’t mean it is always pleasurable or fun, but it’s what makes them happiest. That’s why we see so many women in the helping professions — careers which they often have the luxury of choosing, by the way, even though they are often low-paying because they know they will also be supported by men. Also, through the ages women have done many things from home. They have run businesses and pursued all kinds of interests. It’s really not as limiting as you suggest. And there are many years after children are grown to do other things.] 

Thus, motherhood was “supported” through a severe limitation of women’s options and incentives.  [Right now, women are severely limited by careerism. Many middle class women have absolutely no leisure time and few children.] But mothers themselves were not supported, except through the hoped for continuation of financial support of their men, support that not infrequently dried up when they were abandoned, divorced or widowed (as happened to several women in my family) and which also served to subordinate them within the marital relationship itself. [Yes, women should be subordinate in the marital relationship. A man is the head of he family. I said “head,” not “tyrant.” Men are obliged to love their wives too and most want to do that. This is something that really existed in Christian society and it worked well. There is no utopia. Divorce should be illegal. Then women and men don’t have that fear of abandonment hanging over their heads. In a world where the economy serves the family, corporations would give way to more small businesses that are run from home. Society could make work at home a priority instead of turning work into home. In the Middle Ages, women did all kinds of things from home. Their money-making activities did not entice them from their children.]

The traditional model may have resulted in more babies born and more women at home with their children – though the idyllic childhoods conservative Baby Boomers remember so fondly may have been largely an anomalous product of post-war prosperity.  But it was ultimately a coercive, not a supportive, model. And it utterly devalued the work of mothers who poured themselves into home and family — because that was just what women were EXPECTED to do. [We’ll have to agree to disagree. You presume that women are bored by their children and their homes and their neighborhoods. I’m sure many are today, especially because they are so ill-prepared for these things and neighborhoods are empty. But if that discontent were generally so, the human race would have died out a long time ago because female careerism is very new.]  The notion was that the personal rewards of motherhood are enough in and of themselves to compensate for women’s lack of status, state of dependence, lack of power in the world of affairs or even often over their own lives, and lack of any significant earning capacity.  [Yes, exactly! The personal rewards of motherhood are enough! More than enough! How much more could we ask for? Isn’t it kind of greedy to ask for more?] Women are the only class of people expected to do difficult, stressful, around the clock work for the sheer of joy of it. [One doesn’t have to like being a mother to be good at it. Men are expected to work all their lives for others. What’s the difference? They face severe limitations too but they don’t go around complaining about what a pain it is to have to support their families.] And not only did women have to do this, there was no cultural room to point out the lack of incentive or support or reward or freedom to pursue other options, because doing so would be held to imply that one didn’t love one’s children.  [Oh, I think women were not such wall flowers as you think they were. They were quite vocal about their discontents. But previously they weren’t encouraged to consider their duties as impositions.] Mothers were expected to behave as saints in a way that men never are expected to behave  — and when some of us criticize this model, even now we are held by some to be child-hating demons. [But you said it’s outrageous that married women should be expected to have children? Isn’t that child-hating?]

I don’t have a perfect solution to the questions of how best to support the consuming and important work of parenting.  But I am grateful to be living my adult life in a society in which my husband and I can experiment with different options that meet the needs of everyone in our family (even me!), rather than trapping us in the traditionalist model of one-size-fits-every-family. [There is no perfect solution other than a spirit of interdependence, rather than a spirit of division and discontent. I don’t know what one-size-fits-all you think I am talking about because there is great room for all kinds of different activities, both money-making and otherwise, for women in a world where motherhood is valued, career is not glorified and women consider themselves the helpmeet of men.]

Laura writes:

It would be nice to hear from Abigail twenty or thirty years from now. Abigail, will you write to me then? Perhaps I will still be here. : – )

When you have been working for 45 or 50 years at your profession, when you have maybe one grown child who will shoulder your old age and the old age of your husband alone, when you perhaps have no grandchildren and no prospect of grandchildren, will you let me know your views of motherhood then? Perhaps they will remain the same, but I would like to know.

Laura adds:

I was with a 93-year-old woman the other day. She was celebrating her birthday. (Happy Birthday, Esther!) She was getting out of the car when she stopped and, apropos of nothing, said, “I am so glad I had children!! … Some people don’t have children. I am so glad I had children!!”

Of course, many women work hard outside the home and have children to whom they are very devoted. But as a social model, it severely limits the number of children women in general have. And  the spiritual and moral atmosphere of our whole society is different, which is not to say anyone who stays home now is thus a better mother or that women who stay home are necessarily happier. Children are better off with their mothers at home, and society should do everything it can to make that possible. Talking about this issue in terms of personal happiness of women is a dead end. (It’s also kind of tedious. Women can do so many interesting things at home in the time it takes them to complain about being at home.) But the truth is, in general it’s hard for women to be at home, especially now that so many women are away. It’s hard and requires a lot of sacrifice, unless you are rich. And “working” and raising children is hard in its own way too.

But, happiness is not the main issue. That flows to some extent from accomplishment. Every mother of a person who does not go to heaven is a failure. That’s the bottom line. It’s those first principles that are decisive.

August 8, 2015

Sarah Lemon writes:

You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for perpetuating ideals about women that allow people to be hateful towards women based on their own behaviors and actions. There is a special place in hell for women who do not help other women. Make no mistake, you are shaming women and giving men and other people filled with hated the ammunition to be unfair to women by being so [deleted] ignorant. What kind of a brainwashed and obviously manipulated woman spouts off about women wanting to much out of life? Do men want too much when they spend their younger years womanizing and partying? You wanted nothing out of your empty life, do not fault other women for not being content to be useless to the world as you are. You should keep in mind also that there are women out there who would look at you and think that YOU are the incessant problem. YOU are a woman who is UNWILLING to fight for her own gender. The only people agreeing with you on your website are sexist men, NO WOMEN. What the hell makes you think you’re on the right side?

If you have such an issue with the ways that women are trying to make their lives better, why don’t you promote family functions and events instead of just being a nasty [deleted] and saying women who do that are bad in some way? You could easily inspire women to be family oriented by DEMONSTRATING what that means instead of being a hypercritical self-righteous [deleted.] You are a sad empty women and I’m sorry you are so disappointed and unfulfilled in your own life. There are better ways to seek change than to promote such disgusting hate via the internet. Just because you are incapable of having a family AND a career does not mean that every women is stretching to “having it all.”

I highly suggest that you kill yourself, you pathetic [deleted.]

Mrs. T. writes:

In response to Sarah Lemon:

“You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for perpetuating ideals about women that allow people to be hateful towards women based on their own behaviors and actions. There is a special place in hell for women who do not help other women.” Translation: how dare you not support the “go girl” feminist mentality! You must not only accept, but agree with and applaud us.

“What kind of a brainwashed and obviously manipulated woman spouts off about women wanting to much out of life? Do men want too much when they spend their younger years womanizing and partying?” Translation: I’m jealous of men. Never mind that feminism actively promotes promiscuity amongst young women.

“You should keep in mind also that there are women out there who would look at you and think that YOU are the incessant problem.” Translation: Keep your mouth shut if you don’t agree with us.

“The only people agreeing with you on your website are sexist men, NO WOMEN.” Correction: I am a 30-year-old woman. I agree with Mrs. Wood often.

“What the hell makes you think you’re on the right side?” Correction: She means, the right side is the POPULAR side.

“If you have such an issue with the ways that women are trying to make their lives better, why don’t you promote family functions and events instead of just being a nasty [deleted] and saying women who do that are bad in some way? You could easily inspire women to be family oriented by DEMONSTRATING what that means instead of being a hypercritical self-righteous [deleted.]” Correction: This blog, while I am willing to bet is only a small piece of what Mrs. Wood does in her day-to-day life, promotes family and inspires women.

“You are a sad empty women and I’m sorry you are so disappointed and unfulfilled in your own life.” Translation: You don’t have a “career” so by default you are useless.

“There are better ways to seek change than to promote such disgusting hate via the internet.” The pot calling the kettle black.

” I highly suggest that you kill yourself, you pathetic [deleted.]” Translation: You’ve deeply stirred my conscience. And I hate you for it.

Terry Morris writes:

Sarah, for your information, no regular reader of Laura’s site (male or female) endorses or encourages sexual promiscuity, and/or, partying among young men. At least not that I’m aware of, and I’ve been reading The Thinking Housewife regularly for several years. You should think before you write, or at least before you hit the “send” button.

Nevertheless, and no matter how much we disagree with you, none of us would ever suggest to you that you go and kill yourself. How much more pathetic can one get than that?

Mary writes:

Sarah Lemon wrote: “You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for perpetuating ideals about women that allow people to be hateful towards women based on their own behaviors and actions.”

Well, Laura, Ms. Lemon is right about that: you do perpetuate [beautiful] ideals about women that allow [the Sarah Lemons of the world] to be hateful towards women based on their own behaviors and actions [love of motherhood and homemaking].

Sarah Lemon wrote: “Do men want too much when they spend their younger years womanizing and partying?”

Well, actually, yes. Too much and not enough, all at the same time.

Sarah Lemon wrote: “There are better ways to seek change than to promote such disgusting hate via the internet.”

Doctor, heal thyself.

Ms. Lemon brings to mind the phrase “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”; also the thought that maybe we are mass-educated just enough to absorb propaganda, but not enough to recognize it for what it is and analyze our way past it.

Getting back to the original topic, when I re-read Abigail’s comments I came to see this as a conversation about marriage itself. She mentions having parents who divorced (as did I) and discusses the difficulties her mother faced (mine, too, of course), women’s limited options, her perception of how they felt about those limits, etc., etc.  She is thoughtful and articulate. What’s interesting is how through her ideas we can estimate her age, as no one had that understanding of marriage before 1970. I believe Abigail is a couple of decades younger than me although I can’t be sure. This puts her at something of a disadvantage, as it leaves an understanding of pre-1970 marriage out of her reach, a time when marriage was still instinctively understood to be a lifelong commitment come what may and not an avenue simply for happiness or self-fulfillment. But a knowledge of this time, in which traditional marriage developed over millennia in an organic fashion with amazing commonality between varying cultures world wide, crossing geographic, political and religious lines, is essential to a complete understanding of what is happening today and why.

I am reminded of a piece I came across a while ago called “The Evolution of Divorce,” a sort of timeline which I found fascinating and is well worth a read for anyone interested in finding collected in one place the factors that shaped today’s ideas about marriage and family (and divorce, of course) – which are radical and unprecedented in human history – and the unintended and tragic consequences, especially for the poor. There are a lot of statistics to work through but one of the main points is how there is now a gaping divide between the well-off, who weather the storm of divorce with relative ease, and the poor, whose social structure has been decimated by it and who are worse off than ever before because of it. Many more women have been harmed rather than helped by these developments, these new “freedoms,” Abigail refers to what she calls “the traditional model” of marriage; of particular interest to me in this piece was what the writer refers to as the “soul-mate model” of marriage which came to be in the 70’s – all happiness, all the time, based on emotional fulfillment rather than higher principles of family and societal stability.

I guess the big question is: if happiness and fulfillment for, I assume, all women in marriage and career is the intended goal, after all these years where is the evidence of success? Women outnumber men in medical and law schools, but they also take significantly more anti-depressants. There is an enormous STD epidemic because of promiscuity. Yes, some privileged young women have broken glass ceilings and found fulfillment in dream careers, but many, many more are forced to work at jobs they despise, and many would rather stay home but can’t possibly, due to unstable societal conditions. It seems to me all women was never the goal – it was always going to be every woman for herself. But it didn’t used to be that way.