Why Women CAN have it all

I'm sure every by now has read "Why Women Can't Have it All" by Anne-Marie Slaughter published in the Atlantic. Essentially, I'm furious. 

I'm not going bother critiquing her whole piece, because I'm sure there are plenty of rebuttal articles being written as we speak. And I agree in her sentiment of life being difficult as a top member of the State Department while having children to care after.  My ex-boyfriend was a diplomat, and there were plenty of nights where plans were canceled. One of our vacations was spent with him on the phone with members of the security council trying to get a resolution signed.  Knowing this career path, I can agree that it's NOT practical to think that you can have the proper work-life balance.  But from a male perspective, my ex used to say, "When people ask me how I manage to 'have it all', I just tell them I have an extremely patient girlfriend." Maybe Ms. Slaughter just didn't have an extremely patient husband and children. She touches on this later in her piece about finding "the right" person based on Sheryl Sandberg's sentiments. But I think it's important to note that Men struggle to "have it all" as well.

But I digress. I'm more horrified with the idea that:

 Having it All = Successful Career + Husband + Children.

WHY does Ms. Slaughter assume that we all WANT a husband and children?  And why does that automatically make us "successful" in the eyes of society?

Is it really a "sacrifice" not to have children?  I think it is a "sacrifice" TO have children! I've often been stereotyped as "selfish" for potentially not wanting children. (I never say never...) But is it really selfish?  I have many nieces and nephews, and I know what hard work children are.  I've been exposed at a young age.  I've seen how children CHANGE your life. I get gasps from mothers about how their children ARE their life, and how that's changed their life for the better.  But honestly, you must give up a good 70% of yourself to be a parent. I know that in any relationship, you end up giving up a part of yourself, and the same goes for your children.  You must CHANGE your life to be a wife or a parent.

I'm not quite sure I want to.

Maybe that makes me selfish.  But I want to do what makes me happy.  If I feel maternal, I go hang out with my nieces and nephews for a few days.  If I need to feel loved, I'll start dating around or start a relationship.  But I do those things to make me happy, and I know that if I don't get married or have kids, I can be JUST as happy and "have it all" in my own eyes.

My question back is just a simple if/then statement.  IF I don't have a husband and/or children, THEN does that mean I can't have it all?

To me, my equation would look something like this:

Having it All = Successful Career + Being happy with my life decisions

By the end of the article she writes: "We will properly focus on how we can help all Americans have healthy, happy, productive lives, valuing the people they love as much as the success they seek"  

Essentially that is in line with my ideals.  But her main argument is still that "having it all" is based on an antiquated idea that we all must procreate in order to lead a "successful" life. I feel like I have it all - right now. And if I could stay this happy and positive about my current life through the future, maybe having a husband or kids isn't necessary.