ILNews

Inbox: Sometimes it is enough to be 'good enough'

August 29, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Kelly:

I think the problem is defining the term “all” in your statement “[c]an women in the law really have it all?”  What is your “all?” If your definition is that you tried your best and balanced your own needs, and the needs of others, as best you could, then that should be enough. There is no need for guilt or remorse.

For someone like me, a solo, female attorney with a family, I am constantly balancing the needs of my children, my husband, my work, and my own personal goals. The amount of time and energy I devote to one area is fluid and changes on a daily basis. There are times when almost 100% of my energy needs to be devoted to preparing for a trial. On the other hand, there are days when almost 100% of my energy is devoted to taking care of sick child. It’s a constant balancing act which leads to feeling, on some days, like I’m juggling a bunch of balls that might fall at any moment. But, they’re my balls to juggle. I chose those balls. Most women attorneys I know, who are juggling the same balls, wouldn’t drop a ball for any amount of money that you could offer them.

I tell other women, “you can’t give 100% to every area of your life, at every moment, but you can be ‘good enough.’” I may not be the best attorney, the best wife, or the best mother, every single day, but I’m “good enough” that I can still keep practicing law and paying attention to the needs of those around me as well as my own needs. As women, we have to let go of the guilt that haunts us when can’t devote 100% of our time to our family, our significant others, our personal needs, or our clients. We don’t need to do so. We just need to reframe our thinking on what having it “all” actually means.   

Sincerely,

Patricia L. McKinnon, Esq.
Indianapolis

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT