In the early days of the second wave of the feminist movement, we really did believe that we could change the world. Our dreams were for a world without racism, poverty, and war, and for a world where women and men would be equal in every respect. Men would take an equal role in child care and women would take an equal role in all aspects of public life. We were inspired by the dream that women (and men) could have it all, but I don’t think many of us believed that anyone could have it all without radically transforming the world.
We eagerly spoke about the need to lower working hours for both women and men to say a 36 hour week, about flexible working hours, and about the Swedish model that encouraged both women and men to take parental leave. Changing the conditions of work was a central platform of second wave feminism.
The feminists of my generation understood that it would be very difficult to “have it all” before we changed the world. Unfortunately in the US especially the world has changed, but in a direction exactly opposite to what we proposed. Now working more than 40 hours a week is expected in “high-powered” jobs and many of those in low-paid so-called “low-powered” jobs are expected to work overtime without the option of refusing.
In “Why Women Still Can’t Have it All,” Anne-Marie Slaughter mentioned that her former boss Hillary Clinton comes in at 9 and leaves at 7 so that her employees are not forced to work more than 50 hours a week. A friend of mine in a high-powered job found that she could complete her work between 9 and 5, but she was told that “it would look bad” if she left before the others.
In addition, standard US vacations are 2 weeks, while in Europe 4 weeks is the norm. As we all know, 2 weeks is barely enough time to relax and not enough time to begin dreaming. I sometimes wonder if the American system is set up to ensure that Americans are “married” to their jobs and have no time to think about changing the system.
In Sweden, the dream that men and women would share child care has not been fully realized. Though parental leave is available to men on an equal basis with women, most men don’t take as much of it as women do. Even in Sweden, men who take “too much” time out for their families are viewed as less committed to their jobs. When women take more time off than men, they do not advance at the same rate in the workplace. For this reason the Swedish socialists and the greens are discussing a law that would require men with preschool children to take more time off work to care for their children.
Slaughter describes herself as being part of a second generation of second wave feminists who looked at the “pioneers” of my generation—many of whom were single and/or did not have children—and said, “Not for me.” When we told the women who followed us that it would be very difficult to have it all on the same basis with men, they refused to believe us. Good for them! It is important to keep dreams alive.
The women of Slaughter’s generation saw that my generation had not succeeded in changing the conditions of work and life. They also saw that women were not being rewarded for rocking the boat too much. So rather than continuing to make changing the system a first priority, some of them focused on individual solutions. “I” can make the system work for “me” without changing its structures.
At the same time many of the women of Slaughter’s generation muted their criticism of other basic values of the patriarchy and capitalism that govern the system. Slaughter does not mention that the overwhelming power of the military industrial complex and the assumption that war is the ordinary solution to international problems should make it difficult for feminists to work in State Department. Nor does she mention that Hillary Clinton is forced to work with US military officials who (very like the Vatican in relation to the child abuse scandal) are engaged in a daily process of not responding to and covering up what can rightly be called a “rape culture” in the military.
In the field of Religious Studies feminists are not exactly “free” to “choose” not to be part of patriarchal religions and to get good jobs teaching about them, unless they wear the “veil” of disinterested objectivity.
How many feminists can “have it all” in a society that has not changed? Lucky those who have found “ideal” or “nearly ideal” partners. There don’t seem to be enough of them to go around, so many of us find ourselves in unequal or even abusive relationships—or we don’t have partners. In work, too, how can we have it all when society has not changed? How many jobs– in a voracious capitalist society that has very little interest in the meaning and conditions of work or the environment–are truly satisfying?
I agree with Slaughter that anyone who thinks that women “can have it all” is denying the enormous impediments that society puts in our way. I only wish Slaughter had also said more clearly that feminism is not “about” individual lucky superwomen having it all. Feminism is about changing the world so that all women and men can have time for work and family–and the time to dream about ending racism, poverty, war, patriarchy, and the destruction of the environment.
Carol P. Christ is a founding mother in the fields of women and religion and feminist theology. Her books include She Who Changes and Rebirth of the Goddess and the widely used anthologies Womanspirit Rising and Weaving the Visions. One of her great joys is leading Goddess Pilgrimages to Crete through Ariadne Institute.
Discover more from Feminism and Religion
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Feminism and Religion 
Brava! What beautiful dreams we had back in the 70s and 80s. We wanted everyone to “have it all.” In the 70s, I was in graduate school and in a post-doc fellowship (while I was writing my dissertation, actually), I facilitated a women’s consciousness-raising group in which we heard about full professors still seducing their female students. Alas, not a whole lot has changed, and in some ways–as in the military–things are perhaps worse now, not better. Let’s read Carol’s final paragraph again and say, “Amen!”
LikeLike
This is one reason we moved to Europe. We live in England that is no where near Scandanvia but my husband get 5 weeks paid vacation plus sick days and the kids school schedule is more at harmony with university classes. The lack of a huge summer break is a life saver.
There was a quote I heard “if Americans want to live the American dream they should move to Debmark”
The system is so broken. I seriously must sound like a broken record when I talk about these issues. We must change the system and this is how. …
LikeLike
Carol, your last line is truly the focal point. Thank you. I do have to wonder, though, at our seeming obsession to “have it all.” Everything in life is a balance, and choices are made based upon priorities … hopefully priorities that lead to a peaceful quality of life for everyone. Yes, the system/over-culture still needs to change in order for everyone to benefit, but does that benefit include the gluttony of “having it all?” I don’t know. Do we not move through various phases of life in accordance with Spirit, Nature and our own natures? And as we move and flow, there is a giving away of some things and a reception to others? I’ve just always been a bit concerned with the notion/phrase of “having it all.” Blessings, Carol, for all that you do and are.
LikeLike
I take Carols meaning of “having it all’ to be totally within nature – like the birds in the sky and the fish in the sea – to have it all in mutual sustainability with our environment – a thing that is becoming more and more a myth of the past as humans and animals all become indentured in an inhumane and unnatural system where we are told that we should not dare to ask ‘for it all’….Carol’s words reminded me of Doris Lessing’s prophetic writings of the 80’s when she spoke of a future in which all our rights would be gone and young humans would look at the past as a time of wealth and freedom. I too hoped for the things Carol speaks of and find it a sad surprise that those early times are heralded as the best we can come up with….
LikeLike
Cristina, I like your perception of “having it all” … it feels more like a translation of “being whole” rather than the societal acquisition of more and more.
LikeLike
I do agree that “having it all” can become a way of denying the finitude and interdependence of life and even a motto for egotistic greed. On the other hand, dreaming of a world where work and family and love are in harmony with others and the environment is a good dream. Would that it would come true for every single one of us.
LikeLike
Carol, thanks as always for your words of knowledge and wisdom!
Yes, our generation thought we could create the revolution in our lifetimes that would bring a basic level of material wellbeing, education, and healthcare for all, without vast disparaties between rich and poor, male and female, light and dark races, young and old. It is difficult for women to have as much as we might like to have, and so frustration and anger and compromise are frequently unwanted aspects of our lives. At the same time, it is important for us to focus on a life “in balance” with one another, with the environment, to create a partnership between body and mind, matter and spirit, the knowable and the mysterious. In the US, while many suffer hardships, others have more than is needed or even healthy to have. Thich Nhat Hahn reminds us about inter-being: “This is like this, because that is like that.” There are so many poor, because there are too many overly rich. Similary, many women have too little, because some men have too much. We are all interconnected. Women’s Spirituality helps us to see these connections more clearly, and to seek a life of balance and harmony, love and forgiveness, healing and happiness. On a practical note, I hope everyone will be voting for more humane, inclusive, and feminist candidates in the upcoming elections! Mara Lynn Keller
LikeLike
Mara, who are those candidates? I have been wanting to vote for them all my life. I thought Obama was change I could believe in, but what a disappointment–the environment is suffering, he appointed financial advisors who were part of the problem, he is giving in to the Republicans more than fighting them, he did not help those who suffered from criminal mortgages, instead he bailed out the banks, he has no will to end war and the power of the military industrial complex, instead he and Michele can’t stop talking about our brave solidiers, oh yes, and didn’t he talk about ending the power of big money in politics? I will stop there. And no, Hillary probably wouldn’t have been much different. The enviroment suffered under the other Clinton, and Hillary had to prove herself as a “liberal hawk.” Siggghhhh… I am voting for Nancy Pelsoi, but she won’t even meet with Code Pink, as if to say, women who are against war a bunch of kooks! I also get to vote for Barbara Lee who is one of the only members of Congress who actually stands up for the values you mention consistently.
LikeLike
Carol —
I’m jealous that you are able to vote for Barbara Lee. She certainly has been one of my heroes. I used to be able to vote for Tammy Baldwin as my House Rep. And maybe I’ll get to vote for her for Senator.
LikeLike