The plight of working mothers - as it relates to Sarah Palin
jcc64 wrote: I was thinking about this on my way to school this morning:
I would like very much to discuss this, with the focus exclusively on this one issue:
Do you believe that as women we can truly "have it all"; that is, is it possible to give everything to both career and family simultaneously, or do you think that sacrifices have to be made in one or both areas?
Do you believe that the schedule of the vice president of the most powerful nation on earth is comparable to the schedules of most normal working women?
If the struggles of Sarah Palin's family were occurring in your own home, do you feel that you would be distracted from your professional obligations?
I would love this discussion to stay focused on this particular issue, if possible. Comments about Palin's political views can be accomodated in the other thread. We all look at things through our own personal filters, right? I feel very conflicted about this, because as a progressive, I fully support the right of women to chase whatever dreams they can, and from this perspective, I am behind Palin. But on a personal level, I have come to understand that imo, it is NOT possible to "have it all", at least not all at the same time. Having worked full-time throughout all of my pgs and children's lives, I know from experience that it is impossible to give both things- motherhood and career, everything they deserve all at once. At times, I compromised on one end, at other times, on the other. At a certain point, I knew there would be limits to how far up the career ladder I could climb b/c I wasn't willing to travel on a regular basis and leave my kids for 2 out of 4 weeks of every month, as my boss would have expected. I watched my boss, also a working mom, struggle with the sacrifices she inflicted on her kids by being away so much, and her kids were teenagers, not babies. And her job, stressful and demanding though it was, was certainly not as intense as the vice president, kwim? She paid, her kids paid. Someone has to pay when you try to do two full-time jobs at once.
What I'm saying is, choices DO have to get made, imo. I feel very conflicted pointing to her motherhood as a liability, but to me, it seems that it is, or rather, should be. Two of her five children need her in a BIG way right now, and I guess I could never see myself making the choice that she has (which is why I'm not in politics). But, the whole reason I'm bringing this up is this: I do think her motherhood, and her family circumstances, are germaine to this conversation. I don't care that her teenage dd is pg, or that her baby has a severe disability, only in so much as they might be a distraction for her. I know she's an accomplished professional, but she's also a human being. I'm sure her heart is breaking for her dd right now.
Anyway, thank for indulging my thinking out loud, if you got this far. And please, let's all play nicely!
lisar replied: My opinion is that a working mother can dedicate to her career and also dedicate herself to her children. I do it, every single day. As president I think she still gets plenty of time off "work" to be able to raise her children. I personally don't think its an issue cause there are lots of moms that work and have kids. I do not know a single mom who doesnt hold a full time job. In this day and age most of us have to, to have what we want in life.
I would love to not have to work full time, however I have to, to give my kids a good life, lifestyle, and everything I and them have ever wanted. Example: Nice cars, good food, stable roof over their head, heck all 7 of the 4-wheelers plus 2 power wheels. And this is stuff that they would NOT want to give up. Camping trips. And when they are teenagers I hope I can still give them name brand clothes and shoes cause thats what they will want then. (I am not saying that stay at home moms cant do this already, other parts of the country stuff isnt as expensive as it is here, and the cost of living isnt as high, and some dh's make more money, so dont take this the wrong way please)
My2Beauties replied: I don't really think there is a true answer to this, definitely no right or wrong and this answer will vary greatly depending up on the person, their beleifs, their financial situation, etc.
IMPHO, I don't think a woman can have it all. I don't think a man can have it all to be honest. I think this goes across both genders. I definitely make a lot of sacrifices as a working mother. I only wish I could be there day in and day out all day to see my children and be there for my children. Do I think I'd go insane being home all day - yes but that is besides the point  My kids get to see me from 5:30-8:30 maybe 9:00 all through the week, that is 3-3.5 hours each day, which amounts to 15-17 hours per week, my job gets to see me 40 hours per week. How fair is that? If I strived to be, for example, my director of my dept., she is here at 6am and doesn't leave sometimes until 8pm every day. She has children as well. The woman went on vacation to Hawaii and was signed on at least 4-5 hours per day in Hawaii answering e-mails. I was shocked. She has certainly given up a lot in order to be who she is within this company. She makes mega bucks certainly and she probably has a lifestyle that I'll never ever be able to see in my lifetime because I dont' strive to be the workaholic woman who works her way up the ladder by sacrificing family time. Same with men, all the big wig men I've ever known work 24-7-365 and they never stop. They sacrifice family, children, wives as well. It's sad that we don't take on the values of some of the European cultures and strive to be more family oriented and less work oriented in this culture. So would I want to have it all, NO, certainly not if it meant sacrificing family time. Yes if I could just win the lottery though 
Danalana replied: You can't give 100% to both, there's just no way. I guess you count the cost before you make those big decisions and make sure it's one you can afford. So many women have to work, but then make sure to give extra love and cuddles when they get home. I couldn't do what Palin is doing, but I'm not made for that (politics). I'm blessed to be able to stay home but, if I couldn't, I would take every available second to snuggle up my kids. And I figure her family has a plan, too.
Boo&BugsMom replied: Well...I work only 25 hours a week, but I don't see Tanner more than 1 little hour each day during the school year. He is in school all day, I work at night. SO for me to compare her job to my very low-of-the-totem pole one (to assume I am there for my child more, that is) is a bit "apples and oranges" because it really depends on each families situation. She may put more work hours in, but she very well may see her children more than I do. Are those quality hours? I don't know. I don't live in her shoes, I only live in mine. I honestly think that she sees her children more than we assume. She may travel a lot, but it doesn't mean her children aren't there with her. KWIM?
As far as balancing...I don't think someone can give 100% to both. I think it's impossible. Honestly, I think it's nearly impossible in this day and age where most homes are two-income homes to even give 100% to one when you have children. IMHO, the key is balancing, and we each balance in our own ways in which suits our own family the best.
In ALL honesty...I believe it is always (except for the cases where people just shouldn't procreate  ) in the best interest of children to be home with a parent...not have a nanny, sitter, or daycare. I think that is just common sense really. Who really has children for the purpose to just send their children to a sitter? KWIM? It's not like we give birth and anticipate them going off to a daycare. BUT, since this is not the 1940's, we are left to find the best next alternative. For our family it's me working at night and Troy working during the day, for many reasons. For someone else the next best alternative just might be daycare or a nanny. Everyone makes sacrifices, since we live in a world where we can rarely have our cake and eat it too. However, I don't think it should stop people from having babies, just because we live in the working world.
I would never tell a woman they should not work or make work a priority. Especially when it comes to politics because they play SUCH an important role in our country! Regardless if a mother is working or not working, they are changing someone's life or aiding in someone's life.
MommyToAshley replied: I guess I would have to know the entire family situation before making a comment. If the father is going to stay home with the kids full-time, how is that any different than if it were a man running for president and the wife staying home with the kids? I can see where it becomes an issue if both have demanding jobs that take a lot of time, but there are middle class families that struggle with this every day. It would not be something I would pursue personally and I've actually made sacrifices in my career in order to be able to spend more time with Ashley. I don't have some of the extras in life, but the trade-off is worth it to me. But, that may not be the right choice for everyone.
However, I have trouble understanding a different concept, but strictly from a Mother's point of view. She knew her daughter was pregnant before she accepted the position and knew the kind of scrutiny her daughter would undergo. In an ideal world, her daughter's pregnancy would have nothing to do with her seeking office for the vice presidency. However, it's not an ideal world, and she had to know the kind of publicity this would cause. It's a hard situation for her daughter to be in, but I can only imagine how that kind of public scrutiny has affected her daughter. As a Mom, my first priority would be to protect my daughter from this kind of hurt. But, maybe she has confidence that her daughter is as tough as she is and they discussed it, prepared for it, and then decided it was still the best decision for them.
jcc64 replied: Thank you, thank you, thank you, for all the thoughtful responses. I enjoy and learn from everyone's personal stories about work and motherhood. Lots of valid points. Keep 'em comin'...
Now I have another question:
How come guys don't struggle with this, do you think? Is it b/c society supports their ambition more than that of women, or is it the very nature of the father/child relationship? In my case, dh is a very hands-on dad- he cooks, he cleans, etc...However, he is not as emotionally involved with the kids as I am. I know he loves them with every fiber of his being, but I know for a fact that when he's at work, his mind is on his job. Even when he's home, sometimes his mind is on the job. Whereas for me, when I was at work, maybe 75% of my mind was at work, and the other 25% was worrying about some aspect of my kids' lives, whatever that happened to be at that moment, kwim? Maybe I was just a bad multi-tasker, maybe I just worried too much, but something tells me it's different for us women. What do you all think?
PrairieMom replied: I believe that a Mothers place is in her home with her children. I know that is what I am personally meant to do. I do not believe that God blessed us with children so I can hand them over to someone not even in my family, with out my specific beliefs, to be raised.
I also believe that my way is the best way, for ME, not for everyone, and that we all march to our own drummers. I don't look down on mothers that work, I know that it is a necessary thing, and I don't feel that people should be banned from breeding just because they have to work or anything like that. 
Personally I don't see a problem with a mother of young children having a position like vice pres. or even pres. for that matter. She obviously feels that she is up to the task and that her family will be okay or else she wouldn't be doing it. She is already doing a demanding job.
TANNER'S MOM replied: Well I don't think any one can give 100 percent to anything. Because if you do you have given everything including yourself away. I don't think woman or men can have it all. I think as a working parent you feel the guilt of leaving your family, I think as a stay at home parent you feel the guilt of not contributing as a money winner at times. I think even stay at home Moms feel the need for more adult inter action at times.
I have always worked since Tanner was a baby. I have tried to feel balanced and stay balanced. Work, family, house, marriage and it seems like there are never enough hours in the day but most of the time when I go to bed I am happy. Who cares if the laundry isn't done.
Now, about Palen. I think she can do it. I think she will have a support system that most of us don't have. I think she will have nannies that will be in house. I know most would say isn't fair that a nanny raise her children. Well to be honest us working Moms take our kids to daycare and leave them w/ strangers who we hope like heck have been honest w/ us and that we can trust. It would be nice to know that my child's "daycare" is upstairs and all I have to do is make an excuse for a bathroom break and run up the stairs to see them and check in. I am sure that she will have a lot of accommodations make for her and her children. I am sure her helpers will be highly trained in any needs the child has and she will be on hand and not far away. Children even ones w/ downs can travel and often do. I think it would be huge for the children and parents who have challenges to see that they are normal. Look, they might feel alone and then see that the VP has a son who is in the same shoes theirs is. No, they aren't really one the same level financially perhaps, but I am sure they have all had the same fears and disappoints and that would be awesome for them to share. I think her life would be busy and at times crazy. But heck so was Al Gore's when he was VP and he had how many kids in the white house? And I guess the good think is when she lays down at night she won't have to worry about who did the dishes or if any paid the electric bill. Think how much that would free up time to run the country..lol
Is it fair to ask this question? When we have never said can a Dad who is president still preform his job? Isn't this what women's equality is all about. I mean if we think she can't do it, then guess what we can't look our daughters in the eye and tell them they can be anything they want to be including the first woman President. I mean how many of us have said that to our daughters? I know I have. And I meant it. She can be a mom, a president of this country or she can be a Mom and president of the PTA. I would be proud of both!
Danalana replied: In response to the question about men...
I believe they are just wired differently. Richard hates leaving Kade every day, but his mind soon focuses on providing for us and the task at hand. Women (generally) are the emotional nurturing ones. I think it's awesome that it is that way.
jcc64 replied: You're right about the father question, Mel--I think we were posting at the same time. It's one of the reasons I started the thread in the first place. I've been feeling very conflicted about my reaction--I too want to believe that there are no limits for women--and it felt weird to be having these sort of "retro" feelings about her "fitness" based on her family situation. I think you're right about her access to resources that most "normal" working women don't have. Still, I guess I'm feeling sad for the kids, but I'm not her, and who knows what goes on in other people's homes, as many of you have said.
Danalana replied: Mel, I questioned the same thing. Lots of people scrutinize because she wouldn't be able to spend as much time with her kids...what about men presidents? Even if their kids are there a fair amount of time, wouldn't it be hard to devote much mental capacity to them when you are focused on running an entire country? Somebody has to do it, and whoever does it finds a way to keep family together and running, whether it be nannies or whatever. Anybody who works and has children makes a sacrifice. While some don't really care that much, it's hard for many more.
Kentuckychick replied: I also agree that it's impossible to give 100% in every area of our lives... there's absolutely no way to do it. But I also believe that there are times when we should give more of ourselves to a part of our lives and this is a case when I feel that way.
Sarah Palin is a forty-some year old woman who had a good job and a beautiful family. She'd just given birth three months ago to a baby with down syndrome and now she has a pregnant teenage daughter.
It seems to me that these are the areas of her life she should be focusing on at the moment. That pregnant teenager and her boyfriend do not need to be dragged into the spotlight. That baby needs his mother.
It's not as if she'll be going to work each morning and coming home each night. I'm not talking about her BEING the vice president, I'm talking about her RUNNING for vice president. She'll be traveling all over the country (not something a five month pregnant seventeen year old should be doing, nor a three month old infant regardless of special medical needs) for the next several months and then, IF she becomes the VP that will continue through January.
I think it's unfair to the children.
jcc64 replied: I was thinking about the Democratic convention, and when they beamed Obama's face onto that screen and his younger dd kept asking him, "Where are you, daddy?" or whatever she was saying, and I was thinking how hard it must be for kids to deal with that kind of separation. But not enough to dissuade me from supporting him. Am I, gasp, a male chauvinist pig?!" 
luvmykids replied: I agree with many who have said both that there really isn't a solid answer, and that it depends on the family. You brought up a very interesting point about the dads too.
I can only answer for myself, and say no, I couldn't have it all. To be successful in a career to the point that I'd make the same amount of money as DH and provide for my family, I would have to sacrifice just about every other area of my life.
I think women strive to have it all, partly because of the bs image that it can happen but so many women I know who look like they have it all are crumbling in some area, it just isn't visible to everyone. I think what women are good at though is making the best out of the situation, you do what you have to do and make the sacrifices that are in the overall best interest of the family. In some families that means both parents work in order to provide certain things, in others it means giving up things in order to have a parent stay home.
For me, at this time, I feel like I'm meant to be a SAHM. It has nothing to do with anyone else or how they think, it's about me loving what I get to give the kids. I don't in any way imply that other moms give less, just in different ways.
Bamamom replied: Wow - this is a toughy and I'm the one who made that post in the other thread .
I personally have chosen to stay at home with my kids. DH and I feel that me being home with them is better than the things we could buy them if I went to work. In all honesty I really miss my job a lot of the time and plan to go back to work when they all get in school. But for now I think I can do them the greatest good by being a SAHM.
Two things about Palin's situation -
1) Before she accepted McCain's offer to be his VP she had already made the decision to work. Now I don't honestly know the hours that the gov of Alaska puts in every day compared to the VP or a person running for VP but Palin had already decided to have work as part of her life.
2) My original point was that IN MY OPINION the baby being special needs shouldn't factor into how we view Palin's decision to seek the VP. IMO what difference does it make? My question would be (and this is a rhetorical question - please don't answer just to fuss) to those who think she is doing this child a disservice - should all mothers of special needs children give up their jobs to stay home with them? I think it's extremely unfair to say that she is a bad mother for doing this versus the mom down the street who has a son with DS who works 10 hours a day. Life doesn't stop because of difficulties - be that a son with DS or a daughter who's pg and unmarried. There are people all over the US in similar situations and we don't expect them to quit their jobs over it.
Maddie&EthansMom replied: I think it's a lot to expect anyone to give 100% in any area of their life. I do believe there is a balance and you must strive very hard to achieve a balance in your family life or your family will suffer for it. And I don't necessarily think this has anything to do with whether or not you work outside of the home, in the home or are a sahm. There are a lot of sahm out there who don't have this balance.
As for my husband, he cares very deeply about spending time with his family. But he is also a workaholic. For years he was totally disconnected from us. He had no balance at all. Never checked in during the day, wasn't concerned with what went on at home at all. Of course things have changed dramatically within the past 6 months and this is no longer an issue. I think you can be away and still be connected, if that is your desire. Take the men/women in the military who are off at war for extended periods of time. They manage to let their families know how important they are and their parenting is still effective from thousands of miles away.
I don't know what category Palin falls under. I am thrilled to see her on board as McCain's running mate and I'm not concerned one bit about what kind of job she will do as VP. It shouldn't concern me what kind of parent she is, either. Sometimes the best thing we can do for our children is get out and work. She is a powerful and intelligent woman. I bet her kids look up to her and have learned a lot from her. Kids tend to do that....no matter who their parents are. Everyone cannot stay at home and everyone shouldn't stay at home to raise their kids. As much as Scotty works, our kids still adore him. Because at the end of the day, he is their daddy and he loves them. They don't love me anymore, nor are they closer to me, just b/c I stay home with them.
jcc64 replied: Just came across this article, which was pretty balanced and touched on much of what has been brought up on this thread:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/polit...=rssnyt&emc=rss
A&A'smommy replied:
I COMPLETELY agree with this!!!
Boo&BugsMom replied: Someone once told me something that will stick with me forever. "When you say yes to something, that means you are saying no to something else". Powerful words when you think about it along with the original question.
My2Beauties replied:
That gave me chills because it's so so true.
Working the way I do has seriously given me the blues lately, I really LONG to be with my kids more. I have to work, I have no choice, I hate the fact that I HAVE to, wish there was some sort of happy medium. Not saying I don't want to work at all, because as I stated earlier I'd probably go cuckoo being at home ALL day long, but I do want to be home MORE than I am now. And you know, going back to men, my DH probably would never ever think like this and doesn't feel guilty for working and providing. Us women, we wear a large weight on our shoulders don't we? 
Boo&BugsMom replied:
I know how you feel. I feel that way every day when I leave for work. I HATE leaving my family behind. It's not so bad with Aiden because he's home with me during the day, but not seeing Tanner and Troy much during the week really sucks. I feel my place is at home, but we really do not have any other alternative at this point. 
Danalana replied: I wanted to add something. I mentioned that I was blessed to be able to stay home with Kade. I didn't mention that there are a lot of sacrifices that go along with it. Richard doesn't have health insurance...just life insurance. I had it at my job. We have it on Kade, but that's all...and all we were concerned with at the time. I am NOT used to not having my own money. Now, if I want a book or something, I have to check with him to make sure I can get it (financially). That has been SO hard for me. It's all worth it, for sure, but there is deifnitely a sacrifice, either way you go.
jcc64 replied: I think ALOT of us feel this way, Jennie.
On a side note, did you guys know that there are only two countries other than the United States, Papau New Guinea and Swaziland, that do not mandate some sort of maternity compensation for new mothers? I was pretty shocked by that. I did not instigate this thread to get into that, but it is sort of related to the discussion.
Danalana replied: Wow, that's sad.
My2Beauties replied:
Exactly what I was talking about when I said we should adopt some of the European cultures way of thinking. Canada gets up to 1 year, as well as most of the European countries. I think that is wonderful! They also get what they call 'Holiday' where they just randomly at a certain time of year shut down for 3 weeks I believe it is in certain countries. How awesome is that.
jem0622 replied: Do you believe that as women we can truly "have it all"; that is, is it possible to give everything to both career and family simultaneously, or do you think that sacrifices have to be made in one or both areas?
No...regardless...something has to give. IMHO, to 'have it all' would logically equate to balance and enjoyment. I don't think you can have balance in the truest sense....but there are sacrifices made in both areas to try to get as close as you can.
Do you believe that the schedule of the vice president of the most powerful nation on earth is comparable to the schedules of most normal working women?
Not at all. And I think that a VP has more duty/responsibility than the President.
If the struggles of Sarah Palin's family were occurring in your own home, do you feel that you would be distracted from your professional obligations?
I would hope that I would put more focus on what is happening in my own home and fixing those issues before I took on such a tremendous responsibility. However...the way information has come out about her and what it is like in her household...she doesn't run her household. Her DH and her older kids do. It demonstrates how that can only work for so long. Her daughter obviously did not get the support and attention that she needed if she wound up pregnant. And I was 17 and pregnant too...so I can say that with some ounce of familiarity.
Danalana replied: I've known plenty of pregnant teenagers who had WAY more support than I could even imagine, so I don't think her busy schedule is to blame.
Bamamom replied:
Ditto. I don't think that you can blame the daughter's pg on Palin. The DAUGHTER made a decision and wound up in a regrettable situation.
I think the fact that she is keeping the baby and marrying the baby's father does speak volumns about her upbringing and the values that have been instilled in her.
My2Beauties replied:
It may speak volumes or it may speak that she is being forced to do this. I certainly do not think a 17 year old is in no way, shape or form ready to get married. That being said, I'm not saying it won't work, but I just think it's too early, even with a baby! She can't do anything about the baby obviously but she can do something about getting married. I don't know, some part of me hopes she is doing this on her own, but another part of me belives she is being forced to do it.
jem0622 replied:
As a birthmother, I can tell you that the reason why I got pregnant was the fact that I had no self respect...and a very poor idea of what love meant from the opposite gender. A mother has a significant role (not just being present, or being supportive, or loving) in the care and feeding of their daughters. Now...Palin can't undo her own decision when she married/eloped with her husband...so she sort of painted the picture to her daughters as to what was acceptable. You can be home and you can love your children...and still be clueless about the way they think and what they are influenced by...I see it all the time. It is not easy by any means....but clearly her daughter needs her.
I know it is touchy. JMHO.
jem0622 replied:
I concur with you. I think her daughter is being pressured/influenced to accept this young man and it is unfortunate.
Bamamom replied:
We don't KNOW that. What of all the young people who make this decision every day? In my high school class of 83 people at least 3 girls did this same thing and their moms weren't running for vice-president.
Bottom line - what does her daughter being pg have to do with her ability to be VP?
jem0622 replied: one of the initial questions was:
If the struggles of Sarah Palin's family were occurring in your own home, do you feel that you would be distracted from your professional obligations?
IIWM, I would be very distracted.
Danalana replied: I think it's funny that very little of her real personal life has come out (except for a few "big" things), yet we act like we know the intricate details of their family life, etc...we don't know how their family is run or her relationship with her children. The fact that her daughter is pregnant doesn't mean she neglects her. You can have all kinds of attention lavished on you and still be pressured to conform to what others are doing. Even if I were die-hard democrat, I would be able to see that.
redchief replied: Since I doubt there is anyone here who could honestly be called a Palin expert, I'll stick to the questions. I'm answering as a dad, who also passed up a few opportunities to advance in my younger years so I could spend more time with my kids. While it's true we (men) don't, and very likely can't, have the emotional bonds to our children that their mothers do, time with my kids was a priority for me.
If she had just begun public life I would say that she would be highly distracted, but this woman has higher aspirations and has proven it by winning election to governorship of the most male state in the union. I doubt that, in this case, her family issues will greatly distract her.
Since Jeanne politely asked that this topic stay on, I'll keep my other opinions to myself... for now.
edited to fix my horrible grammar and misspelling.
cameragirl21 replied:
What makes you think she has a choice?
TANNER'S MOM replied:
What makes you think she doesn't?
cameragirl21 replied:
I never said she doesn't. I never assumed the decision was hers, though, as the person I posted to did. Maybe she made the right choice, based upon her upbringing...or maybe the choice wasn't hers to make, we will never know, will we, so why assume either way?
Bamamom replied:
I guess I don't KNOW that she had a choice about keeping the baby. Just like you don't KNOW that she didn't.
However I base my belief that she is voluntarily keeping the baby on the fact that she is marrying the father. While the Palin's may be able to control whether or not their daughter gets an abortion I find it hard to believe that they can force this young man to marry their daughter or their daughter to marry him.
New thought - anyone considered that she KNOWS that she won't be able to spend as much time with her son as she might like or be there for her daughter as she might like - BUT SHE IS WILLING TO MAKE THAT SACRIFICE FOR THE GREATER GOOD?!?!?!?!? As for me - THANK GOD there are people who are willing to sacrifice their own well being to make life better for us all. Someone needs to do that - soldiers, police officers, fire fighters, doctors (I could go on and on) do it everyday. Palin is doing it on a grander scale...with less thanks...and more critisism..for her AND her family.
My3LilMonkeys replied:
According to the info I was able to find online, Alaska allows underage girls to have an abortion without their parents consent or knowledge, which IMO makes the decision entirely hers.
Sam & Abby's Mom replied: Do you believe that as women we can truly "have it all"; that is, is it possible to give everything to both career and family simultaneously, or do you think that sacrifices have to be made in one or both areas?
Actually, I dont think anyone can really have it all.
For example: Take me and two of my sisters.
I stay home with my two young children.
Another sister has a very good full time career and two small children.
Another sister has a very good full time career and no children.
There's bits and pieces of each of our lives that are really good but I dont think one of us 'has it all'. I believe we have each sacrificed one thing to have another.[B]
Nina J replied: I think everyone has different interpretation of what 'having it all' is. For myself, having it all does not necessarily include a successful career. It just means having enough money to be able to pay bills, clothe family, buy food and have money for other things & savings. So, when I have worked (currently I am not), I don't particuarly want to be promoted to a higher position with a higher salary, etc. Nor does dh; dh has a stable job that he enjoys. He is happy with his salary and happy that he enjoys going to work.
I don't know if I am explaining myself very well.
I don't think anyone can really have it all in the long term. We can all be happy and content in our lives, and at some point have it all, but it is never set in stone. Life throws curve balls at us that could change our status in terms of 'having it all'. e.g. loss of a job, god forbid loss of a spouse or child, etc.
I don't think I have it all. I think I have a lot, but I don't feel as though I have what I would classify as 'it all'. I hope that in a few years I might be able to see myself as having it all. But as long as I have a roof over my head, food in my kitchen, clothes on my back, my husband and above all my little girls I consider myself to have more than enough to make my life a happy and blessed one.
|
