What is Your "All?"

Cover photo courtesy of TIME.com

Flipping through my copy of TIME this past weekend, I came across the latest version of the "women can't have it all and the biological clock is always ticking" article. Ugh. These articles always end up either a. infuriating me, or b. depressing me. And neither of these are desirable outcomes at 7:30am on a Saturday morning (when I stumbled across this article while making breakfast.) I can never decide what is more problematic: the idea that this "all" they are referring to is universal (successful career balanced with a happy family) or that we are still so focused on a child-bearing future in this millennia of successful career women, child-free lives and IVF/adoption practices.

The basis of this week’s edition advising young women on how to lead our lives (and still have children!) compared two new books for my demographic: Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean in For Graduates and its antithesis Susan Patton’s Marry Smart. While the immediate focuses of each book are at polar opposites, the overarching themes are scarily the same: whether you want an ideal family (Patton), or a successful career (Sandberg), there is no time for mistakes. Of course, with that successful career comes a natural desire for a family, and thus the need to childproof your career. As the columnist Charlotte Alter writes, “their guidance is underscored by the persistent beat of our biological clocks.” Which leads me to my first concern with this article:  why are we still living this assumption that all women want to bear children? Why is this always the endgame?

Yes, I recognize that biology is a factor in our lives, but I do not think it should be the deciding one. When I wake up in the morning, my first thought isn’t: my eggs are one-day older, oh no, I should go husband-hunting after work…my first thought is: how am I going to invest my time today both in work and in my social life so I can continue to reach my future goals and be fulfilled? 

But why do children remain the predominant factor in our future? I believe the focus of this argument starts to lose its agency when you look at my generation of career-driven and independent women. TIME wrote a whole issue on “The Child-Free Life” which cited a 2010 Pew Research report showing that “about 1 in 5 American women end their childbearing years maternity-free, compared with 1 in 10 in the 1970s.” Does this not say something about the general direction our lives are going in? As in-not towards the baby crib?

However, I believe that is exactly what these types of opinion columns and advice books are doing-driving us young women towards the nursery. If we didn’t constantly see these nightmare-tinged articles warning us of the perils of not getting married or having children soon enough, I don't believe we would automatically push ourselves towards this endpoint. I am curious if this one-track focus handicaps us from discovering fulfillment in other arenas of our lives. By following this vicious cycle obsessed with having children (naturally and according to our biological clocks) we are not spending time on other rewarding aspects of our lives. I don’t just mean a successful career, although that seems to be the opposing choice in all of these arguments, I also mean simply finding a supportive life partner, or the freedom to travel more, or making other large life decisions without the specter of your future child lurking in the shadows of every step.

Ultimately, we are limiting ourselves when we tie our trajectories to this polarizing two-sided argument. We have deceived ourselves into thinking we must always make a choice: career or children. The whole “women can have it all” argument went out the window with Anne-Marie Slaughter’s infamous “Why Women Still Can’t Have it All” piece in 2012, and for good reason. The idea is appealing, but the reality of timing, professional and personal pressures, and the desire to raise children/maternal instinct is practically impossible to juggle. So my question is: why are we still trying to juggle it? We must push beyond this limiting scope and not settle for these two life roles that have been chosen for us.

I am not advocating that all women should decide not to have families (I may still want one someday), but I am saying that the focus of the argument needs to change. Which brings me to my second qualm with the article: We live in the 2010s which means IVF, adoption and many other alternative birthing options are regularly available and socially acceptable. We don’t need to be scared of time-we can enjoy our youth, focus on our careers, make mistakes, and still have a family when we are 50 if that is what we want.

I don’t think we should speed up our life-tracks (be it in the work place or marital sphere) and worry about lost time. We should decide how that time needs to be allocated for our own needs and phase out this child-focused argument that continues to persist for millennial women.

It seems ironic that in a 21^st century America concerned about the pay-wage gap between men and women and realizing both the benefits and ultimate necessity of having women in more leadership positions, that this child-focused concern remains. I would think the GDP might be more important.

As the first female director of the IMF, Christine Lagarde pointed-out in an NPR interview:

“We found that if females were working in the same proportion as men do, the level of [gross domestic product] in a country like Egypt would be up 34 percent, up 27 percent in a country like India but also up 9 percent in Japan and up 5 percent in the United States. All economies have savings and productivity gains if women have access to the job market. It's not just a moral, philosophical or equal-opportunity matter. It's also an economic cause. It just makes economic sense. It's a no-brainer.
”

Having women engaged in the workforce isn’t simply a focus our society should take, it's an economic necessity. So why are we trying so hard to deter women? As Alter reminds us, “Young men aren’t cautioned that one missed opportunity could leave them children or unfulfilled.” And these cautionary tales are not only limiting women’s leadership trajectories in organizations, but also hurting their potential. Which is a shame when Lagarde shares with us her experience working on a 24 all-male board of directors, “And it's very unfortunate because, not that these men are incompetent — they're very competent — but diversity [due to the lack of women] is a richness and we're not having the benefit of that.”

We should be pushing more women into the workforce and allowing them to flourish (and fail) creatively, not be so concerned about each minute step and the idea that one false move can unravel a future of happiness. At the end of her article, Alter’s parting argument is dissention: there truly isn’t enough time. Life isn’t fair. So, “just get cracking.”

I have a different take on this dilemma: If I have a family one day, I want to be a full-time stay at home mom. Having my mother home with me and my sister for the first 13 years of my life was irreplaceable, and I know I would want to be the same support for my children. But am I thinking about that every morning I wake-up and make future career decisions? No. If I was, I probably would be husband-hunting as actively as I am currently searching for new career opportunities. Some might say this is irresponsible and/or naïve…but I say, I am making the life decisions that are bringing me more fulfillment. And that is what matters. Why would I begrudge my future children all of my lost opportunities of travel and adventure? Why have those regrets when I can easily shape my own goals and reality right now?

Let's change the conversation, and focus on finding our own "all" in the 21st century.