Family economics and ‘having it all’

Published 9:05 pm Monday, December 9, 2013

Suzanne Venker, a writer and the founder of the “Women for Men” organization, has sparked the latest fusillade in the ongoing culture wars by claiming that women still need men, if they really hope to “have it all” — a career, a family, and personal fulfillment.

Even as feminists respond with anger and derision, they admit how worn out they are by the effort of trying to do everything by themselves.

Venker’s statement was calculated to be controversial, of course (she’s Phyllis Schlafly’s niece), but it raises some legitimate issues.

In the 1960s, feminism’s message was one of independence from men.

“In time, ‘never depend on a man’ turned into the full-blown belief that men are superfluous,” Venker wrote. “In 2010 Jennifer Aniston claimed women needn’t ‘fiddle with a man’ to have a child. … Fortunately, most women come to the realization that they do, in fact, need a man — at least if they want a family. Financial independence is a great thing, but you can’t take your paycheck to bed with you. And there’s nothing empowering about being beholden to an employer when what you really want is to have a baby. That’s dependency of a different sort.”

Even as they reject her message, some feminists confirm her assertions.

Writing for the Huffington Post, Pauline Gaines said adamantly that she doesn’t need a husband.

“Now, 10 years after the divorce, I am a licensed therapist with a median-income day job and no child support,” she wrote. “As grueling as my job is, and as exhausted as I am when I slog through my front door in the evening, I cling to it for the health insurance, the retirement plan, the paid sick time, and the fact that, without it, my kids and I would be sleeping in my dented Prius.”

But the problem isn’t that she has no husband now, it’s that she had one in the first place.

“Recently, FoxNews.com ran an article by writer Suzanne Venker, whose advice to women was to ‘lean on your husband,” Gaines wrote. “Meaning, let him make the money so you can stay home with the kids and go to yoga class. That’s exactly what I did — and it’s the biggest regret of my life. That, and the fact that I didn’t build a career early on that was more lucrative. If I had, and I’d kept it, I wouldn’t be moving to a two-bedroom apartment. I wouldn’t be swallowing Klonopin at night to quell the harpy-like thoughts about what happens when my savings run out.”

Gaines is missing the point. Venker isn’t talking about morals, she’s talking about math. When “having everything” is defined narrowly, then sure, a single woman can do fine — and even, as Venker acknowledges, be happy.

But the usual definition of “having everything” includes a family, a career, and meaningful relationships. As any single mother will tell you, there aren’t enough hours in the day to get everything done (to her satisfaction).

Venker’s column has sparked controversy, but her claim shouldn’t be controversial. It simply the reality of family economics.