… this “all” in “having it all”

Still Sundays

June 24, 2012

This Sunday morning the fine, sharp tip of the spear of Stillness poked me—and not that kindly—at 6:00 a.m. I wasn’t ready. Moreover, I knew this Sunday words would belong to Stillness and I would just be a bronze figurine busting words beyond my head.

I welcomed this June morning made of cool breeze and I wanted to float out of dreams onto the air on top of my bed sheets and just hover there.

But I couldn’t continue lying down.

The Rolodex of thoughts and memories kept flipping till I picked one to examine: the way my dada, paternal grandfather, would drink a glass of water.

My dada always drank water out of a tall clear glass as if he was seated in a restaurant around the Trevi Fountain in Rome and being filmed for an anticipated blockbuster.  Poised, attentive, and composed.

He considered sitting down and having a glass of water like people do tea or coffee or wine. It was a conscious act. A moment he would carve from the wood of Time to honor his body needing nothing more or less than water, just plain water, this colorless, odorless, transparent liquid running through the earth.

Although I didn’t follow his footsteps precisely when it came to the grace with which he consumed water, I certainly developed my own honoring when I would have a glass of water. It has become a habit now and an odd one. After I have water I make this sound, aloud, just like he did, aaaahhhhhh, as one does when at the doctor’s office except opening the mouth sideways, a cartoon grin. It is an extroverted exhale, finding root deep beneath the ribcage and not stomach. He would do it too but it seemed more fitting given he didn’t skip out on the steps like I do. And he certainly never stuck out his tongue like I (sometimes) do.

Drinking water consciously truly makes you feel alive. But then again I suppose doing anything consciously tends to do that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The article, “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” by Anne-Marie Slaughter in The Atlantic has generated a storm of responses.  Anne-Marie Slaughter was the first woman director of policy planning at the State Department for United States foreign policy. She took this job during her two years leave (any longer and she would lose her tenure) from Princeton. The article is very long. This means two things: people are offering “140 Character” opinions without reading it in its entirety or writing “new” articles, their opinions, about one sentence or paragraph from the entire piece as if the article’s purpose was to serve as writing prompts for those who couldn’t come up with any other topic.  This article was followed by opinion pieces in Salon and New York Times. I can’t believe the only one worthy of reading is the one in Jezebel:  No One ‘Has It All,’ Because ‘Having It All’ Doesn’t Exist by Lindy West.

I don’t have anything more to add after reading Lindy West’s take on the matter, the only one who used some critical reading and thinking skills demanded by the Slaughter piece.

I am certainly not going to offer yet another opinion about an opinion about an opinion. I am not a “blogger” in that sense. I consider this space, to be able to share my thoughts through the written word, a privilege. I can’t take the mainstream editors lack of knowledge about my existence as a stamp about my lack of seriousness. I am more than grateful for my small audience that thinks, feels, questions, and grows.

However, there is something else I would like to point your attention.

I noticed that there were over 1000 comments on The Atlantic piece. Yes, I read them. Well, most of them.  No, not because I had the time. I actually made the time. It only takes a few minutes to know whether one should continue reading comments or not. Given the demographic who reads The Atlantic the comments did not disappoint.  Despite such a charged topic, I was pleased to find that most of the commentators added to the discussion, except one or few trolls who engaged in lewd personal attacks. The only irony was the discussion they were having was not about the article!

The comments can be grouped as follows: everything is the fault of humanities and arts versus majoring in STEM (I learned “STEM” stands for science, technology, engineering, and math), what constitutes as success in the aforementioned fields, how it is and isn’t the education system’s fault, what are the best jobs, careers versus careers versus careers versus careers!

People who did not have children (by choice or otherwise) were dismissed from the discussion because they couldn’t relate to the desire of ‘having it all’.  Nevermind the fact that someone who doesn’t have children their ‘having it all’ might mean wanting to be a teacher, own a coffee shop, and sell jewelry, and volunteer at the homeless shelter and travel with his or her significant other and have enough savings to not depend on others in old age and take care of one’s parents yet it just isn’t possible to do it all!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What is this ‘all’ that everyone wants to have? Maybe this grand, dark, unattainable abyss called ‘all’ is really a truthful examination that leads to actually not wanting at all but just being. And it is unfortunate that we associate ‘just being’ with lack of goals, ambition, and therefore unworthy to be included under the definition of success.

Why has no one considered that now that Anne-Marie Slaughter has more time for her sons they just might grow up to be the kind of men who value love above and foremost and therefore are guided by that in most of the decisions they make—be it on a policy level or personal. And by this I am not asserting that those women or men who can’t spend the time they wish they could with their children are entirely responsible for the decisions the child makes as an adult and are all causally related.

Or how about that Anne-Marie Slaughter just doesn’t want the job she once had? Why is she responsible for the rest of the women who may or may not want that job for same or different reasons as her?

I want people to ask different questions!

This ‘all’ which is based on rungs that simply can’t hold the weight of all that doesn’t matter and to the extent it does it varies from person to person.

It is time for women to consider men. Most of the men I know wish they could spend more time with their wives and kids. They also wish they were more valued at their jobs. They also wish they came from backgrounds that immediately placed them in the frontlines of promotion.

It is time for women to consider themselves beyond the constraints of this or that type of feminism. What do you want? Why do you want it? Why are you okay or not okay with wanting this or that?

If you want power and want to act like those very men who are the reason we needed equal rights in order to feel empowered as a woman then go do it. But don’t make someone else responsible for your feeling a lack within or desiring something different, something that is beyond the paradigm of what you should want.

I don’t doubt (in fact I know!) that when competing for the top 1% in any field the attitude by-any-means-necessary prevails. But that fight doesn’t consider gender. Power and ego are simply about power and ego.

Whenever I have encountered resistance in the field of education or law or even volunteering it has less to do with me being a woman and more about others’ perceptions (including women’s—especially women’s!) about how a woman should be. It often boils down to my lack of desire to assert my ego, which doesn’t mean I don’t have high expectations from myself or those around me. The world has yet to create space for women—and men—who simply want to add value. Most are threatened by this state of being.

Yes, women deserve equal rights and equal pay and…equal everything. This doesn’t have to come at the expense of what each woman really wants and what each woman really wants doesn’t have to come at the expense of defining all women.

Until we can have a discussion outside the box of careers and a one-size-fits-all definition of success we are not really having a new dialogue but simply wanting our stories to be heard. We are desperate to have anyone listen! We are all tired. We are all trying. We all feel something is missing. The best antidote to that is the opposite of ‘having’: it is giving. Go give more. Even if just by being.

How about a dialogue about what do you consider spending time with family? Why is that time effective or not effective? What is the quality of life you desire regardless of the standard of living you wish to have?

This is not a new discussion but I am glad for it nonetheless. As long as we are going to be governed by stories about what women (or men) “should” want instead of being honest about who we are we are not going to get very far.

Maybe this ‘all’ is nothing more than a tall glass of cool, clean water that makes you smile with gratitude.

2022. It still feels like a number in science fiction. It is only ten years away. We can still have a discussion about who we are outside of what we do to generate an income so as to offer rent for being on earth in a system of exchange, a system as old as time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note: I will be enjoying NOT having it all the next two Sundays and just indulging in the task of being. : ) We are going to be visiting my family in California. I will be sipping cool water under the shade of huge trees in my (pa)rental units’ backyard, in their farm house in the small village town where they stay. I will resume my Sundays’ essays on July 15th. Many thanks for reading and sharing. You always know what’s real in Stillness.

Related posts:

The Granny Who Knew Time. Still Sundays Still Sundays Essay by Vince L. Wilson Still Sundays