 Having it all comes from Helen Gurley Brown, the editor of Cosmo, who wrote Memoir in the early 80s about having it all, and it was a kind of self-consciously elite, wealthy, you can have it all. You know, if you think about Cosmo, the sort of the perfect woman, I didn't know that. I grew up with the idea that having it all meant you had a career and a family too. That women could have what men had, which was a career and a family too. But I have since been convinced, A, that it has no legitimate feminist pedigree, but more importantly, that it is exclusive in all the ways we've just heard. That the idea of having it all for people who have barely enough to either feed themselves or maintain their families or hold on to their jobs, that frame is exactly counter to the conversation we're trying to have here. The bottom line is it is about really figuring out a way within our society to empower our community so that everyone has a fair shot to be in a position where they can be close to having it all. But what does that mean? So I think in order to understand what that means, I think we have to take a baseline analysis in terms of what really makes a family whole. When we invest in community, when we invest in people, when we work to build power and elevate that power, again, not create it. These are leaders. They're leaders. Women are the backbones of families and communities. These are leaders. But when you provide the tools and resources to do advocacy, to speak out, to raise the issue, to tell their stories, to testify in front of elected officials, that is a place where we will see change. It is critical to engage the community, engage those most impacted to be the voices of change. Even as this kind of have it all and what is work-life balance, like for so many of us, especially those of us that come from low-income backgrounds or are continuing to be in low-income situations, you know, and are passionate about change, it's all the same. It's all the same thing. It's work and life is all together. And we can't separate it out, per se, in that very kind of, it really is a very middle-class or upper-class perspective of like, oh, you go to the office and you do that, and then you go home and you have this separation. And it's like, no, I'm fighting for my people every day and that may or may not be how I'm getting paid. As we consider the limitations and strategies that address making the integration of work and life a reality for Americans, regardless of race or class, let us consider the parallel effort of growing the pie of talent and enabling progression for those who are stuck inside and outside the job market but want to get in on the act. Because until we solve this problem, the balancing act that we speak of will seem like more of a luxury to many than a dilemma. When I first started doing this work with Family Values at Work and the Labor Project more directly five years ago, we had about 700 coalition partners around the country. Now we have more than 2,000 just under the Family Values at Work umbrella and the Labor Project umbrella. And at the same time, we also have a significant number of other organizations that are gravitating their interest to this work to paid leave, paid sick days, scheduling, pregnancy accommodation because they see that we've got to figure out how to address caregiving and working in America. It doesn't have to be either or and it shouldn't just be for people who are middle class or upper middle class and have jobs that are considered essential. It should be for everyone. In order to change the industry such as I'm in, you need to have women at the top of the organization who said we need to do this now. We need to make these changes and I insist upon it. And that woman has to be a woman whose front line, who has revenue impact because that is what it's like being in the NFL. You're going to have to be a player on the field. So you want those women out there as really strong advocates and pushing for it and you're beginning to see pieces of that. If you look at these organizations, they're changing in some ways. In some ways they feel like it's 1962, but in others it is changing the type of flexibility and the questions that you can raise. Half the reason I'm still doing this and I'll be 61 in three weeks is I'm not leaving until we get it the way that it needs to be.