Book Reviews | 10/10/2009 3:00 am

When to Say 'No' – And More Life Lessons From Mireille Guiliano, by Erin L. Jones

Our writer reflects on Guiliano’s latest book — Women, Work & the Art of Savoir Faire: Business Sense & Sensibility — which seeks to answer the age-old question: Can we have it all?

By Erin L. Jones

Erin L. Jones

Editor’s Note: Erin L. Jones is a wOw reporter, freelance writer and editor of frenchwomendontgetfat.com.

When I was in college, my politics professor said something to our class that is one of the best pieces of "food for thought" I ever received. The intended class lecture had taken a turn from mundane international treaties into a sociological debate over the changing role of women in today’s society. The details are inconsequential but suddenly my professor said, "I truly feel bad for young women today. You girls have it harder than ever. You are expected to be super-mom and a completely driven career woman. And what’s worst, you’re expected to be extremely good at both." This statement hit me like a ton of bricks. It threw a wrench into my rose-colored picture of the future wherein I envisioned myself somewhere in the middle of these two extremes, yet mastering them both (practicalities rarely factor into daydreams). That was eight years ago and I’m only now making beginning to make peace with my modern-day gender dilemma.

It’s ironic that I would come to work alongside the author Mireille Guiliano, a woman who climbed the Veuve Clicquot corporate ladder all the way to the top, and decided to write about it — distinctly from the perspective of a woman. Previously, Guiliano has written two books devoted to the art of cultivating pleasure in life. In her new book, Women, Work & the Art of Savoir Faire: Business Sense & Sensibility (Atria 2009), the former CEO blends both areas of her expertise: business and pleasure. In doing so, she tells us something we may not want to hear: that we can’t have it all. In fact, she says it better than that, advising her wide-eyed female reader: You cannot have it all or do it all, at least not at the same time. Her message carries weight — Guiliano elected not to have children.

The way I see it, the problem with trying to live between the rock of career woman and the hard place of good mom is that both jobs require a full attention span. Half-hearted efforts yield half-assed results in both respects. It’s hard — near-impossible, even — for a woman to nab an executive position by leaving at 4:50 every day to get home in time to help her son with his math homework. In today’s working world, leaving at 5:00 PM has garnered a negative connotation. Those who run home to their children are not around when the boss comes knocking for a favor at 6:30 PM. Inevitably, the promotion will go to someone else. On the flip side, staying late at the office and working weekends has acquired a very different negative connotation — this one at the parent-teacher conference. When your son is struggling with math, there’s a teacher opposite you thinking, "She is one of those moms who works all the time and is never home. No wonder her son is struggling." Do women have enough "limbs" to be both the arms for their children to come home to after school and, at the same time, the right hand on which their bosses can depend? How do we escape the stereotypes and yet fulfill them at the same time?

30 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

We don’t have to "have it all" all at once. There will be time for US to be all we want to be (and most of us only know WHAT our own roads in life will be - the road that will be fully satisfying and wonderful - much later in life). What I have found - from long experience - is that any neglecting of the childhood years of our children tends to bring problems germinated then to the fore in adulthood. These problems - like it or not, believe it or not - come home to roost when we are in the midst of our own heyday.

For those not there yet, this is a warning, a warning with all the flashing lights! We have choices on numbers of children. . but once made, I believe that the parents should be responsible to these children. Jobs? I see more and more women taking shared positions with other mothers, working only a couple of days a week if money is needed.

Now, let’s talk about the second half of life - that time when the kids have flown the coop. I find that we pretty much know what direction we want to go to be that fully independent woman. We are not that old — I was under 40 when my kids were gone. The seeds of what I wanted to try had germinated. I was up and out (and fully know that you can finish a degree on-line while the kids are growing by doing it slowly - so no excuses on that one!!), being very particular that I was following my own road that had fleshed out as I became more mature. The joys in my life earlier had been my children. Now my joys of a different sort soared as I began fulfilling my own potential that had been waiting in the wings.

We are far more confident in our 40s, better equipped thru life experiences, and our minds never have been sharper. It is our time. . and will remain so. Our paths often go into different directions than we could have imagined existed. Doors open up to us and we don’t have to weigh the choices between children’s needs and our own. We can go full steam ahead. I know because I did.

Yes, you can have children and work at a major job full time — but you will look older as the strain of juggling both takes its own toll. The long- range toll on the children comes back to haunt. If you must work, make it part time (as I am betting a nanny is out of your range). But use that children’s growing-up time to complete your degrees, advanced degrees in the evening when there is help at home. Do reading so you are up in what is expected in your upcoming field. The regrets will come like stones resting on you later IF you are not home as much as possible in those growing years of children. You will have missed some of the most beautiful times of life - and learned so much from the trying parts (of which there are many).

Yes, we women can have it all. For, after the children, WE can become all we can be — and if you are like me, "glory" on this combination forever after. And — ladies — NO guilt!!!

By joan larsen on 10/10/2009 8:03 am

e-mail alert

Joan, I think you have it right for those who want it all.

By Lila Kuh on 10/10/2009 9:47 am

e-mail alert

This article doesn’t mention the men who father the children. If the men attached to these mythical women took a more active role in parenting, women wouldn’t have to feel like they need to be superheroes. In my mother’s generation one stayed at home with the kids. When my father died she had no idea how to earn a paycheck. She changed overnight into a scared shell of her former vital self. Then she died a year later, most probably from the stress of raising five children and finding work at 42 years of age, with no prior experience except that of juggling the lives of seven people—an incredible superhero skill that didn’t count as a skill back then. This is ancient history to me now, over four decades later, but when I was very young I understood the dynamics of this arrangement and realized I had to be the person who supported myself—because I literally had no one to lean on but me. I decided at that very early age not to have children. The men who have stayed in my life supported that decision.

By kermie b on 10/10/2009 8:29 am

e-mail alert

Kermie … your second sentence says it all - and we should take heed of it. Men who father the children should be taking their own role, their own part in raising them. Children look up to parents for love, for guidance, for the difference between right and wrong. We all learn but what we see - how else do we know if we have not had caring parents to model from? It should be TWO people parenting. But so often the father figure is not assuming his role — or just plain gone.

Like your father, mine also died when I was still young. It was only much later when I realized - as an adult - the responsibility that shifted on a single parent. Can you imagine — the salary is no longer coming in and the remaining parent has to make a "go" of it? Obviously, my mother had singular strength as I so no collapse, no upheaval. She remained resplendent, hiding what surely had to lie beneath. A series of heart attacks starting at age 50 probably told the untold tale of what it took to remain so outwardly strong, looked up to as a perfect parent.

But - for a couple - bonding takes place if both assume their own and different roles as parents. They are working together, lightening the load, but sharing . . and with it, having a degree of understanding of what it takes on an every day basis to raise children that ultimately turn out well as adults. That crucial part was certainly left out in this story. . as if it would be unexpected for the father to be doing his part.

By joan larsen on 10/10/2009 9:46 am

e-mail alert

Joan, physical death is not the only thing that removes parents from the lives of their children - abandonment in fact is worse. All the impacts of death occur, but the parent still exists in a vacuum, yet children do not learn in a vacuum, they learn from the substand or lack of in their lives.

There are the parents who are not involved in the daily existence of their children, who harbor distain for another parent of the children, perhaps ‘getting even’ with one another, may not even pay court-ordered support - who simply are not ‘there’ emotionally. Negative vacuums are still vacuums.

These tragedies exist in the lives of children now, and geneations back - thus the loss is more than real - they are alive but not living for their children. Hence, the children cannot grasp the ambiguity of vacuums - never (perhaps ever) able to resolve what is never there.

Today, much could be done if the courts would follow their own mandates of responsibility for the children in all cases that involve their parent, or parents. Death is final - abandonment never ceases.

By C jay on 10/12/2009 8:32 pm

e-mail alert

Kermie, your post really resonated with me as we come from similar situations. I was a child of the reverse situation, with a single dad after the early death of my mother. And my dad’s own mother had been raised by a widowed immigrant who barely spoke English; the death of her husband left her to earn a hard living as a housemaid, raising three small children alone.

Given this background, my dad always stressed education and impressed upon me the importance of being able to earn my own living, as none of us can really depend on anyone else. And like you - this is one reason of many that I did not want children.

Agreed, fathers should be there for their children just as much as the mothers, but in reality this ideal is not always met, and if nothing else, death can intervene at any time.

By Lila Kuh on 10/10/2009 10:04 am

e-mail alert

My mother was an anomaly. She "had it all", but unfortunately in her case having it all was a condition that was thrust upon her. When she was eighteen, her mother died eighteen days after giving birth to a baby girl, the fourth child in the family. Her father went on an immediate and long-term alcoholic bender, and my mother was immediately put in the position of caring for the baby, a six-year old sister, and a sixteen year old brother. She had just enrolled in education classes at college, and was looking forward to becoming engaged to my father (if he behaved himself a little better!)

I don’t know how she managed it, but she did it all. It was the depths of the depression, and my grandfather’s alcoholism made a steady income a somewhat iffy proposition. So Mom went out and got a job as a bookkeeper in a butcher shop. And found out that the butcher shop had a sideline as a betting parlor. She took a deep breath and kept BOTH sets of books, and years later had a fund of hilarious stories about some of the Damon Runyan types who frequented the "back room"! And as a special perk, she was able to feed the kids with the discounted meat she received. She often brought her baby sister to work with her in a little basket, and the six-year old came after kindergarten and got to play with a toy telephone one of the bookies bought her - a little bookie-in-training. She went to classes when one of her aunts - or my future father - was able to babysit. When she felt she could trust her brother, he often cared for the little girls when she was busy with homework. She took her six-year-old sister on dates with my father, including one epic occasion when the little one decided to remove her clothing and stroll the Grand Concourse au naturel. She did it all.

I don’t think she truly had a full appreciation of her own challenges, though. She never thought of herself as a superwoman. She was just a young woman thrust into a very difficult situation. There were moments, she said, when she felt overwhelmed, but she soldiered on anyway.

And she was a super woman! She did have it all - and being the soul of generosity, she gave most of it away to her family, her friends and the nursery school children she taught for 35 years.

By Susan Crawford on 10/10/2009 9:49 am

e-mail alert

Susan . . . that was a story of stories about your mother. As they say in all stages of life: life happens. And then the telling part is what we do with the challenges before us. As your mother did, it is too busy to do anything else. Instead, you live one day at a time until you see the glimpses of sunshine again. We are much more flexible, have much more energy, when we are young. We look back. We say "How did I ever do that - how did I get through that?" What, again, we don’t see until some years have past is that we made it through, and not only that: we have learned, we have grown, we have become more mature - and yes, independent and confident as we have succeeded. There is always an upside if we but look for it.

Your mother sounds most special. . . and again, what sets her apart is her life was spent doing for others. When one does that, the rewards that come back are not money — they are better than money. She was loved, admired, but the joy she bought to other children is so noticable that it rebounds into the heart. And money can’t buy that. I would call it a life well lived and a woman exemplary to all others. Instead of "poor me", it is saying "Yes, it can be done and my rewards are in love returned". And I am guessing you are very much like her. I am sure you are. Joan

By joan larsen on 10/10/2009 10:57 am

e-mail alert

Thank you, Joan. I hope I have inherited some of her qualities. She was a very special person in the lives of many, many people.

By Susan Crawford on 10/10/2009 11:46 am

e-mail alert

I have written about Mireille Giuliano before on these forums and I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to offer Ms. Guiliano an apology because I was wrong. My error was that as I live in France I don’t witness what I read in her book ‘French Women Don’t Get Fat’ and various other essays. But recently I read again her book ‘French Women Don’t Get Fat’ and this time I seemed to understand a point which is basic and which escaped me before: choice. The book espouses ‘informed choice’. I see now how I was mistaken. Not every woman in France chooses to be skinny, thin, slender, athletic, chubby, or fat, but they are all choices. I have long known, as has everyone, that maintaining a certain weight is about choosing to maintain that weight and within that choice there are a great many options. What I see is a great many women not in Paris not choosing to be skinny, think, slender or athletic. In Paris though, it is quite a different story. I also don’t see people turning off their tv set and computers to go to bed at a decent hour, but then I live in a small village in the countryside or in St. Etienne. I don’t know how anyone ever gets any sleep at all in Paris. That city is always rocking! But all of life style is a choice.

I was a single mother of 3 for 24 years. I didn’t have a boyfriend, man friend or life companion because I never had a free minute that did not involve my children or my jobs. Even though I tried as hard as I possibly could, there are times I failed both job and children, yet my focus was always children first. Had I chosen to remarry or asked some guy to live with me, perhaps it might have been easier? I don’t know. What I do know is that if I were given the opportunity to do it all over again I would not have sold my business. I would have instead, hired a personal assistant and forgo working for anyone else. I would have still had my children, though now, I realize I would have rather waited until much much later.

So, yes, Mireille Giuliano, life is about choices. Pretty scarey that we don’t realize the extent to where those choices will lead when we allow social rules to tell us what we should expect.

By S A on 10/10/2009 10:06 am

e-mail alert

I, like Guiliano, elected not to have children. I have known from my earliest years that I wanted to go forth into the world and do adventurous - even dangerous - things, and I have never been willing to give that up. But I also feel strongly that children deserve nothing less than the total dedication of their parents, and that was just not compatible with what I wanted in life. I’m selfish. There it is. Wouldn’t change a thing.

Had I been a parent, I would have felt obligated - by my own views - to leave the Army and raise my child full-time. And I know there would have been many wonderful moments, but I also know that I would have greatly resented giving up the life I built for myself. And of course the child would eventually sense that he wasn’t fully welcomed into my life. That’s just not fair.

As to working moms, I have seen many female officers who have one child, and choose to stay in the Army, but soon find the reality of juggling demands too difficult, and leave the Army after a second child is born. And I am not a fan of single parents in such demanding professions; as Guiliano says, both the job and the children suffer. I have long advocated the responsibility of making realistic choices. Thanks to Guiliano for a common-sense look at our limitations.

By Lila Kuh on 10/10/2009 10:31 am

e-mail alert

So many of us just look out and say, Wow! there’s something better over there and let go of the "All that you were Given". You had it all, but so many let go to reach for sonmething that is not there …..it was just a reflection of something you had, but thought was somewhere else. out side the great wonderful "YOU"

By john smith on 10/10/2009 11:07 am

e-mail alert

4 months ago I came to the same conclusion- you can’t have it all, and you need to work with what you have. I spent 13 years going to school, working, raising one and then another child, and had just started an MBA program when I thought "Who I am doing this for?" I have 2 wonderful children, my husband has a good job, and I was staying in a position I was increasingly dissatisfied with because "they need me" and "I’m in line for a management role". Well, I don’t want to inherit the mess that was being made at work, and my colleagues, although great, weren’t going to help raise my kids or clean my house or be in a relationship with my husband. So I quit, and after 4 months, I haven’t had a bit of regret, other than maybe I should have done it sooner…I get bored, and I get frustrated, but I was that way at work too…It’s horrible to admit, but I almost get deliriously happy when my daughter cries for me - she never did that before!

By Tonia Scoville on 10/10/2009 11:21 am

e-mail alert

I have not read Ms. Guiliano’s works, but I have enjoyed a full life. Lot’s of mistakes can be made if you look at your life as "Poor me". I was a single mom and had a fairly good career and two wonderful boys. There were lots of hard choices every day. Career vs. motherly duties. I made sure my boys rarely saw this juggles. We do not have a red "S" on our chest. One thing I must say you have to learn to ask for help when yoiu need it. Don’t just swallow a dilemma and ‘carry on" go to a friend, colleague or parent. Tell them what you need. Especially today with the cost of living you have to set priorities of needs vs wants. You "Can have it all" just make sure what you have is what you really want.

By Bonnie Schuster on 10/10/2009 11:27 am

e-mail alert

A Full Life is the one you look back on when your life is almost over. The choices you made, children or childless, career or home are done. If you look back only at the mistakes and wrong decisions then it was not a full life. If you can look back and say, "hey that wasn’t so bad". Then you had a full life whether you choose to look at it in that way.

As Robert Burns said so well."If you could see yourself as others see us You would be happy with the gifts that God Gave Us". (paraphrased from the Scots.) And I say this not as a religious person but as one who has led a life with all the good times and all the bad times. Just live your life.

By katywon LA.. on 10/10/2009 6:03 pm