We Could Have Had it All... Actually No.

I have a problem with this concept of "having it all" because it assumes a ton of things that are only specific to whatever demographic the term "all" applies to in its specific context. In order for a woman (or anyone for that matter) to "have it all" they must first desire (or already have) a few things. Primarily, they must desire children, and to be the primary caregiver for their children. Secondly, they must also want a career that is challenging and financially advantageous. Thirdly, they must be in a subordinate position in their relationship through which any type of sacrifice in the relationship must come from them and not the male (their status as heterosexual is also assumed). Fourth, they must also abide by a definition of "all" that includes the preceding conditions and is inflexible to change.

This quote from the Linkon article this week illustrates this, because while she is shedding light on the working class struggle, she is still projecting her (privileged) idea of what working class women want out of life.

"...we can probably begin by speculating that “having it all” for a working-class woman would not be about professional success.   More likely, it would be about finding the balance between hours at work and hours at home, keeping a job and a steady income while being there for her kids — pretty much the same challenge that professional women face."

While many working class women may actually desire the things that Linkon highlights, even her inferences attempt to generalize the aspirations of an entire group of people without knowing them personally. I'm sure this isn't the intent of the article, but it can also be inferred that she is likening the working class experience to the experience of those in the middle class, which is faulty logic at best.  She also claims that financial stability (i.e. keeping a job and a steady income) is a goal of many women in the working class, but fails to mention any desire of upward social mobility. When considering the lack of upward social mobility in America, working class dreams of "having it all" are not likely to be realized if they include upward mobility. Even still, a steady income can mean different things to different people, (which to me) creates an idea that cannot be generalized to an entire group of people.

The concept of having it all is undoubtedly going to change for each person. For some it could be rooted in their consumptive capabilities. For others it could mean a balanced life, and in some cases it could mean spending as much time as humanly possible being with loved ones or involved in their work. People are very diverse, and so are their aspirations; which means that the concept of "having it all" will never apply to everyone at the same time. Furthermore, the ability to have it all (for women and men) assumes that at some point in life people will reach a point in which they no longer desire anything more and are completely satisfied with everything. I can understand being content with life, but I can assume (as many people do about the concept of "all") that it is difficult for almost anyone to reach a point in their life that they are completely fulfilled, satisfied, challenged, and passionate about every aspect of life. Happiness is attainable, but the idea that people can attain this dogmatic version of "having it all" is largely unrealistic.

If this issue of "having it all" is going to be addressed, then it is going to have to be done on a personal level because people need to be able to define what "all" means for themselves.