For years there has been discussion about whether women, and in some cases men, can have it all; this is defined as the general assumption based on the Western model of what and how having it all is defined. For some, the idea of ​​having it all can be defined in the simplest measures, family, health and well-being, according to the American model so often defined towards women which would include family, career, health, wealth and sometimes much more. variables. The article “Can't Have It All? Blame Our Extreme Work Culture” by Rana Foroohar specifically addresses the challenges that working American women and men face in determining whether or not to attempt to break the glass ceiling, or to “settle” for compromise and balance in their daily lives family, work. and culture. There are many parameters in which the dilemmas outlined in the article can be addressed. A specific focus will be emphasized on how Marx's theory of the “dynamics of capitalism” and how it relates to our culture of extreme work, gender inequality and the invisible work of women in the home, and Gilman's method of incorporating the theory evolutionary approach to women's roles; reproduction, economy and divided self. Marx society has seen for centuries the male dynamic of superiority, the designation as “bread winner” or breadwinner. Women were specifically assigned the roles of wife, mother, and nurturer through the process of sexual or gendered division of labor. However, this was not always the case. Over centuries of changes and shifts in economic development, women's roles have changed to fit their specific roles in society. The status of individuals in society was defined by sex, age, physical characteristics... middle of paper... adult males. There is also a direction in which children would benefit if there was more equal or egalitarian participation between both parents, allowing the child to develop and benefit from the interaction of both parents. This could have transcended the governmental environment by emphasizing the role of women whose skills were more directed to professional and public life. She strenuously agreed that women were better suited to raising children, but that they should not be confined as their drive risked being stifled due to an inability to publicly express their creativity and intelligence. Applying these ideas today, and to the desire to “have it all,” Gilman would most likely see the need for a change from the male hegemony still present in modern society regarding the role of women in the workforce..