Why the Childfree CAN Have It All – At Least, All That They Want
Anne Marie Slaughter’s controversial article “Why Women Still Can’t Have it All” in The Atlantic was followed up recently by Madeleine Kunin’s piece in the Huffington Post, “Why Men Can’t Have it All Either”. Both discussed how the confines of the American workplace make it near impossible for anyone to take full advantage of career opportunities without feeling like they’re making serious sacrifices in their personal lives. But in both cases, these sacrifices were discussed only in the form of parental responsibilities. Two questions came to mind:
1. Why are these articles titled with “women” and “men” when they’re really only talking about “mothers” and “fathers”?
2. Why would you want it “all”?
The Childfree are conspicuously absent in this discussion of whether we can have it all. The reason many of them are Childree in the first place is because they agreed: working mothers and fathers do have it all. But why would you want it? Having a bit of everything on your plate is a little like going nuts at the lobster buffet in Vegas. You feel like you’re supposed to experience everything and get your $29.99’s worth, so you heap it all on there. Thirty minutes later, you’re seriously regretting that ramekin of drawn butter. You’re feeling guilty that you’ve largely ignored that heaping scoop of fettuccini you just had to have. You’re living in a relative state of concern about the button of your pants popping off without warning. You want nothing more than to hit the re-do button and not take on so much, or at least gracefully crawl under the tablecloth for a quick nap. There are some alarming parallels here to the complaints I’ve heard from parents…
All jokes aside, taking on so many different responsibilities usually means not having enough time to focus on the things you enjoy most, or to reach your fullest potential for any one aspect of your life. It reminded me of an article I read once on how multi-tasking may no longer considered as desirable a trait in the workforce. More highly valued is the employee who can put their attentions towards a limited number of activities, and do them very, very well – without allowing themselves to be continually interrupted with things that prevent them from achieving their goals.
Single working parents or dual-income parents in households where childcare responsibilities are equally shared don’t have this luxury. These parents attempting to put just as much concentration into their career as they would have without children is admirable, but frankly, unrealistic. Kids don’t disappear from the hours of 7 am to 6 pm so their parents can get to work on time and stay till five each day without interruption. Shoelaces are lost. Temper tantrums explode. Homework is eaten by imaginary dogs. Calls about projectile vomit in the classroom are received. These things happen. They happen all day long, whether Mommy or Daddy are already late to work. To assume they won’t is at best, naïve. And though it’s definitely frustrating for Childfree co-workers to have to re-schedule meetings or pick up the slack from time to time, we don’t expect parents to shortchange their kids. They’re going to be running the world someday (while we’re still in it), and we’d rather they be well-adjusted, productive members of society instead of ill-mannered sociopaths.
In fact, I’m all for the policy changes Slaughter proposes that align working hours with school hours, or change the way corporations view a parent who passes on a promotion, makes a lateral move, or even takes a step down to make family commitments their top priority. As our under-funded school systems do a worse and worse job of educating our kids, making a career sacrifice is some parents’ only hope of churning out an intelligent, kind, happy, well-adjusted child. And as they’re so quick to remind us, the task of successfully raising a kid these days is an enormous undertaking. Some classify it as the hardest job in the world. So then how is it reasonable to expect parents to keep up with the increasing demands of the American workplace and still be the best mom or dad they can be? Should we even want them to?
Some of the Childfree will say yes – that parenthood is a conscientious choice and they should be prepared to bear the consequences of shouldering a 50-plus hour workweek on no sleep with a few billion pressing needs floating through their minds. But do you really want all your co-workers with children to be panicked about how they’re going to find time to pick up cupcakes for Susie’s graduation or whether they should have sent Jacob to school with a slight fever, instead of focused on their work? What good does that do us as a fellow employee, as a company, as a society?
Parents will never stop focusing on their children – nor should they. But until the current confines of the American workplace are adjusted to make families and work/life balance a priority, there will always be tension. There will always be people feeling like they should have it all, but can’t. Kunin’s argument was that the battle for work/life balance should not be a mother’s issue exclusively; it should apply to fathers as well. I’ll go one step further and say it should be an issue for any human being who wants to be more than a robot, who wants to have a meaningful, rewarding, well-rounded life in addition to their career.
We just need to make sure that the definition of work/life balance (which seems more like work/parenthood balance these days) includes benefits for the Childfree – who also happen to have families. We have spouses, pets, siblings, parents, nieces and nephews. The difference is that in most cases, we’re not responsible for raising them or ensuring their livelihood. We can put in a full day at the office and still attend our niece’s ballet recital – if we want, and if something hasn’t come up at work. Though parents also have the option of missing recitals (and unfortunately, frequently do), it’s not without a giant heaping of guilt and resentment. And some very major changes in workplace policies and culture are the only feasible solutions.
But until that happens (if it ever does), it seems like the Childfree are the only group that can truly have all that they want, exactly how they want it. Perhaps we’re fortunate that we don’t want more. That we’re content with simple pleasures like putting in a solid day’s work at a job we love because we didn’t opt for a career that was based on needing to support a family; or taking a long stroll with our spouse after a romantic dinner-for-two where we can discuss something other than Junior’s private school tuition; or taking time to volunteer and give back to the community; or retiring early to travel the world and really enjoy life before it passes us by.
Sounds like more than enough to me, even if it’s not considered all.








You sound more and more decided with every post, Miss Maybe.
I love the balanced view you take. There’s an excess of evangelism on both the parenting and child free sides these days.
Boy, you’d think I’d be getting more decided, wouldn’t you? But it’s always a few steps forward, then a few steps back sort of thing. So strange how it swings back and forth like that.
Do you notice that it swings back and forth based on your monthly cycle? I’m noticing as I cruise into my late 20s that part of the month around ovulation I’m more open to the idea of children being key to happiness and fulfillment, and the rest of the month I have a clear/cynical head about me. I’m pretty sure the hormonal rush is the falsehood and the list of rational concerns of being miserable as a parent is the truth.
Wow, that actually makes sense – the human body is so clever. I hadn’t noticed that, but it’s something I’ll have to look into!
I just wanted to say how much I respect how rational and respectful you are when you discuss these issues. I don’t want kids, and part of the reason for that is that I don’t want to be endlessly inconvenienced by the needs of children (I imagine that if I wanted children I wouldn’t mind these needs, but I just don’t). So I get extremely cranky when I’m inconvenienced, especially at work, by the needs of others’ children. I didn’t sign up for inconvenience, and I shouldn’t have to put up with it just because you did.
But you always look at the subject from both perspectives, and you seem willing, as you mention here, to give parents some good will leeway because of all they’re juggling and because of the importance of raising children well, whether you do it yourself one day or not. You’re a better not-yet-baby-having citizen than I, and we could all stand to take a page from your book.
Also, you’re delightfully hilarious.
Why thank you, Melissa! I guess part of it is just hoping that someday people will equate work/life balance with all kinds of lives, including the Childfree life, so if parents are leaving at 3 for softball games, the Childfree can take off early to go to a class or volunteer or visit a grandparent in the hospital – whatever!
Agreed. Like when I worked at a movie theater in high school and those employees who smoked could take a 10-minute smoke break on top of their lunch and 15-minute breaks – but we nonsmokers just had to cover for them. Perhaps I would have liked a nice 10-minute origami break. Or a flower-arranging break. Apparently I was really into Japanese arts and crafts back then.
Great post! I was actually thinking about this the other day. I wonder about the evolution of this “having it all” idea – where/when did it come from? I mean, historically, NOBODY “had it all” – if you had a career and a child (regardless of gender), chances were that the care of that child was outsourced to spouses, nannies, or extended family. I think it’s useful to point out that maybe pursuing the two things to the fullest extent possible is just inherently not realistic. I’m not sure where the idea that career AND children was attainable, much less desirable, came from. Although I think your buffet analogy might be close. I mean, for many women in our society, we have an astounding number of career choices available to us – so much opportunity than, say, one or two generations ago! But simply having the opportunities available to us doesn’t mean we can DO more with our lives, just that we can select from a larger number of options. The plate is the same size, we’re just trying to pile more on to it.
Very well-put – it’s like going to that Vegas buffet with the tiny appetizer plate and still trying to make a pig of yourself!
I second Jack’s a girl – we should be aiming to have “enough” rather than “it all”. If we become parents, I fully expect to take several steps back on the career ladder. Hell, I’m already doing that because of the current economic climate!
But I have never been driven to be top of my field, or some high-ranking executive. I’ve been happy to allow Mr Basketcase to focus on his career and just let mine go where it wants – I have enough outside of work activities to feel fulfilled, work just helps pay for them!
Well with a name like Mr. Basketcase, how could he not be a corporate powerhouse?
And who’s to say that having children and a career is having it “all”? Why are those the only two things in life that make life worth living? What about a social life with people who love you, what about a successful marriage or relationship, what about education and knowledge, what about a hobby, what about money in the bank, what about vacations and memories? Do all those things mean nothing, as long as a woman has a career and children?
Agreed – “having it all” should really be different to everyone, depending on what you find valuable in life.
Yes, I’ve seen some serious rebuttals to this article, and they’ve all been very interesting. You hit the most important point right on the head: Why are the childfree totally ignored? Why are we still assuming that woman=mother?
The other issue with this is, people are still struggling to define what “all” is. No one seems to understand that this definition didn’t come about logically. It just seems like it would make sense, on a superficial level. Just like people should stop and think about having children before they have them (if they choose to), people need to think about what ‘having it all’ means to them.
I think this concept of wanting it all is a relatively recent one since we’re living in a bit of a “more, more, more!” society these days. It seems harder and harder for people to just be content.
I like the phrase, “You can have it all, but not all at once.” I don’t know what “all” is for everyone, but I’m pretty sure that you can only give so much in your life. So if you want a full-steam career, go for it. Want kids, go for it. You can have kids and a career, but chances are you won’t be able to give 100% to both of them simultaneously. And there’s nothing wrong with that, in my book.
I don’t think I’ll be having kids, because my life is full and teeters in and out of balance daily. My pay-the-bills job takes up a lot of time. But then I have my creative endeavors — those take up time even as it’s not enough . And my partner. He’s sweet, so I give him a lot of time too. Having a baby means that something would have to give, probably my creative work, and I’m not willing to give that up.
I don’t see anything wrong with prioritizing — those priorities will change as your circumstances will over time.
I don’t want us to go back to the age where women with careers gave up on having a family, or women with families gave up on careers (or men, for that matter), but I think it’s unrealistic to think that you can give 100% in every department. Something has to give. It would certainly be made easier if companies made adjustments to work days, flex time, child care options, etc.
Yup, something’s always got to give when you add something else into your life. And if you’re going to add something as huge as children, you’re going to have to do a lot of giving to make room for them.
Great post. So what do you think of Marissa Mayer being 6 months pregnant and taking on the high-profile position of CEO for a publically traded failing internet giant? Type A- much??
Ms Mayer seems to me to be the very definition of going for the all-you-can eat buffet rather than picking what you really want from the menu. She’s stated she won’t let her pregnancy “interrupt” her career and she plans to take minimal maternity leave. What kind of message is this sending to all women- childless by choice, working moms, SAHM’s and those who are undecided: Would love to hear your thoughts on this one!
I feel like this came up a little bit when Sheryl Sandberg put out her message about encouraging women not to take their foot off the pedal of their career until the exact moment they have to leave to go give birth. While it’s an interesting thought, I just don’t know how realistic it is for a lot of women. For most of them, having a baby is going to be the most joyous occasion in their lives. Should their thoughts not drift to preparing for it, getting excited about it? It just seems like a way to guarantee a whole lot of stress to try and hold everything exactly where it was, even though your life is about to majorly change. I SHOULD write a post about it, but I’m afraid of the comments. Haha!
I work in an extremely male-dominated law firm with very few women in positions of influence. Thus, guidance on female work/life balance issues is virtually nil. One day I a phone conversation with a prominent female partner at another large law firm in another state who, for some reason, out of the blue asked me if I was happy there. Not trying to recruit me, she was genuinely interested in my happiness (which totally caught me off guard). I think it had something to do with the fact she knew I had just basically done an all-nighter on a brief on our multi-defendant case. I told her I was concerned about the impact of work on my personal life and she told me how she has made it work for her. She said she has come to the realization that she can “have it all” but not “all” on any given day. She accepts that on one day she is going to make it to that recital and be seated in the front row and be a great mom but not such a great worker since she had to leave early in order to be there. Another day she might be a great attorney because she stayed at work late preparing for something and got her job done but not such a great mom or wife because she missed dinner and bedtime. Another day she might take a weekend trip with her husband and be a great wife but not a great mom since she’s away without her kids. She said she believes that women set themselves up for miserable failure and debilitating guilt if they try to be the best mom/employee/wife every single day of their life. Personally, I think her advice was great. I’ve been shocked though when I’ve shared it with others in my office (who all happen to have kids) and they are very put off by the idea that someone would be ok with the fact that sometimes their children were not their #1 priority.
Although I’m getting closer to the idea of starting trying to have a baby at the end of the summer (I talked with my husband who said “um, ok I guess?” and saw my gyno who high fived me and gave me a stack of free samples of pre-natal vitamins) I’m still worried that down deep inside I’m too selfish to be a mom. If I’m ok with admittedly being “not a great mom” on a given day because I need to be a good lawyer that same day, is that wrong?
Well of course I don’t think that’s wrong. I’d venture to say that the woman who gave you the advice is still probably a pretty darn good mom even on the days she works late, because she probably has a more sensible head on her shoulders than someone who believes they can have it all, 100% of the time, 100% of their days. I also don’t think you should put pressure on yourself to have completely perfect outlook on the kids issue before you decide to have one – I can’t imagine there’s many people who go into it without one or two doubts.
Thank you so much for commenting on this piece. It’s been quite interesting to see the responses of various audiences in various life circumstances. I admire the author for her career accomplishments, and for making the decision she needed to make at that point in her life. When I saw that magazine cover, I remembered a super-similar Time magazine cover of a cute baby on top of a bunch of paperwork. Why, oh, decade after decade, is it still such a poignant juxtaposition of roles in life that seem mutually exclusive??
On a related note… Has anybody seen “I don’t know how she does it” I’d love to hear what folks thought about that movie. It’s pretty awful. It’s also super weird to see Sarah Jessica Parker/Carrie Bradshaw as a mom, but many of the inequalities in the workplace are I think quite well portrayed. And also, how harsh the super-moms culture is by reproducing this very same overachiever mentality with raising children… Totally-on-the-fence’s comment nailed it… I can imagine folks’ reactions by suggesting other things being more important than being super mommy 24/7. :S
I haven’t actually seen that movie, because it looked about as awful as you’re saying it was. Though maybe I ought to for “research” – that, and Friends with Kids, which I also never saw. I live in a cave, evidently.