May the Idea of ‘Having It All’ Be Retired Too
In honor of Helen Gurley Brown, who reluctantly gives up the helm of Cosmopolitan magazine after 32 years, today’s topic is “having it all.”
Having it all?
Merely typing the phrase wearies me.
So I take a break from writing. I crack open the hefty February issue of Cosmo, Brown’s last. This month’s featured cover cleavage is attached to Claudia Schiffer. And you know, much as I’d like to get back to work, to delve into the paradox of how Ms. Brown combines an exuberant support of feminism with an utterly slavish devotion to the busty anorexic ideal, I can’t . . . until I get through this story about how a woman’s sexuality improves as she ages: “The road to erotic self-knowledge is marked by surprisingly universal signposts. Ready to chart the life span of your libido?”
You bet I am!
I really should be addressing the notion that many over-stressed working mothers blame feminism for deceiving them into thinking they could “have it all,” when, in reality, blame should be laid at the fashionably shod feet of Helen Gurley Brown, a professional success who may have made a fairy-tale marriage (to producer David Brown) but who never set foot into the messy realm of motherhood. It was Brown, after all, who penned the 1982 bestseller, “Having It All.”
First, however, maybe I’ll just skim this photo feature on actresses, “The Big 10 . . . Starrier Than Ever, but How Long Can They Shine?”
And maybe you could go back to work without having read “I Slept With My Sister’s Husband.” Not me. (FYI: The affair ended after one year; neither party ever revealed the deception. Holiday gatherings are awkward.)
I don’t disapprove of Cosmo, exactly. But with its unreal cover models and thin-thighs-at-all-costs aesthetic, it fills me with ambivalence: My inner feminist wants to punch my inner Cosmo Girl in the nose.
This dynamic, it occurs to me, also describes the somewhat strained bond between the “official” feminist movement and Helen Gurley Brown, whose perfectly apt maiden name brings a smile, even now, as I say it aloud.
*
“Well, I don’t think I sold a bill of goods,” says Brown, who turns 75 next week, and who cannot, when asked, think of a single good thing to say about getting old. “You can have it all. And it’s a hell of a lot of work. And it causes considerable stress. I never, so to speak, had it all. But I had my all, which is what I wanted: work and love.”
She is smart enough to raise the issue of childlessness preemptively, smart enough to know that when the rest of the world is talking about “having it all” it is tossing motherhood into the mix.
I suppose this is why I find it irksome that the dilemma so many women face--how to balance work and motherhood--is exploited by traditionalists as evidence that women who believed themselves “liberated” have, in fact, been enslaved by a feminist myth.
The truth is, if such a myth exists, it was invented by the editors of slick women’s magazines, not feminist political leaders.
For the sake of historical accuracy on this point, let’s return to 1970. Legalized abortion is three years off. Women can still be fired for getting pregnant. In some states, married women cannot sign credit agreements or use their maiden names or incorporate businesses. And here, 27 years ago, is Gloria Steinem, in a Time magazine essay on how the world might be different if, as the editor’s note puts it, “Women’s Lib had its way”:
“Women don’t want to exchange places with men. Male chauvinists, science-fiction writers and comedians may favor that idea for its shock value, but psychologists say it is a fantasy based on ruling-class ego and guilt. . . . The revolution would not take away the option of being a housewife.
“As for the American child’s classic dilemma--too much mother, too little father--that would be cured by an equalization of parental responsibility.”
By contrast, it was the Cosmo Girl herself who said, 20 years later: “One part of your life is sex and men, and another part of your life is work and achieving. And where I sometimes get into trouble is saying your work is just as important as your love life. But no feminist--not Gloria Steinem, not Betty Friedan--ever inculcated me with that idea. I came up with that by myself, and it’s on every page of Cosmo.”
Children, of course, do not merit so much as a footnote.
“I think some women who are homemakers who don’t have professional jobs might feel that’s a little unfair and I would have to plead guilty to that,” says Brown congenially.
And a Cosmo girl is always congenial. Even though she insists that “people hate me, they really despise me because I am little,” it’s hard to dislike this contradictory creature, this kittenish septuagenarian.
I tried, by the way, to find a copy of “Having It All.” The huge, discount chain did not carry it. Nor did the small, endangered store specializing in women authors. Nor could the library produce a copy. It cannot be ordered; the book is out of print.
There is, undoubtedly, a good reason for that.
* Robin Abcarian co-hosts a morning talk show on radio station KMPC-AM (710). Her column appears on Wednesdays. Her e-mail address is rabcarian@aol.com.
