Per the last post (and many of your thoughtful comments), I’ve been thinking about that expression, “having it all” which has been evoked as a proxy for feminist goals for at least thirty years. (Some intrepid M.A. student in a History or American Studies department should do a history of this expression, “having it all,” and its application to the women’s movement. There: that’s my mentoring for the day, and it’s only just 8:30 a.m. MDT! On to the laundry and the library, now.)
What an ugly expression, meant to portray feminists as greedy consumers rather than social justice advocates. And yet, many feminists have accepted or embraced “having it all” as the terms of the debate! Never do we hear debates about whether heterosexual men can “have it all.” It’s just assumed that “it all” belongs to men, and that if women get more, 1) men will necessarily have less, and 2) the laws of nature will have been subverted.
Of course, it’s easy for me to write about this because in fact I have “it all,” or at least as much of it as I ever wanted, which is pretty much what men partnered with women take for granted. I don’t feel greedy–just happy for my good fortune.