At 5:30 a.m., I am already behind. Before my coffee cools, I’ve checked a lab result, breastfed my baby, reviewed patient notes, cleaned pump parts and mentally rewritten the day twice. By 8 a.m., I’ve already done a full shift — just not the one I’m paid for.
Women were told we could “have it all.” What we weren’t told is that “all” would quietly become “all at once.”
So it’s fair to ask: Did equality backfire for women? Not exactly. It just stopped halfway.
The modern women’s movement sought to correct real inequities to ensure that opportunity wasn’t determined by gender. And it succeeded in extraordinary ways. Women today lead, innovate and shape nearly every field. Consider how far we’ve come: Astronauts like Christina Koch are helping guide NASA’s Artemis program back to the moon. When humans last walked on the lunar surface, women in the U.S. couldn’t obtain credit independently, were excluded from many professions and had little protection against workplace discrimination.
That progress matters. But it has also exposed a tension we rarely name: in striving for equality, we may have created a new kind of strain.
Certain biological realities — menstrual cycles, pregnancy, postpartum recovery, lactation — place time‑intensive, physical demands on women that have no true parallel. These are not abstractions; they are recurring commitments written into the body. Acknowledging them does not undermine equality. It complicates it. Because it forces a difficult question: Were the systems women are expected to succeed within ever designed with these realities in mind?
Today, many women navigate a double load — full participation in the workforce alongside a disproportionate share of domestic, caregiving and mental labor. This imbalance is well documented. Research from organizations such as the Pew Research Center and the Bureau of Labor Statistics consistently shows that women perform more unpaid labor than men. Wage gaps persist across industries. And many women experience measurable career setbacks after childbirth, often described as the “motherhood penalty.”
Related: St. Paul’s Women with Walkers protest ‘the best way we can’
This tension is often most profound among high‑achieving women — those deeply invested in their careers yet still carrying a disproportionate share of responsibilities at home. For many, the limiting factor is not ambition or capability, but the structural reality of sustaining both spheres simultaneously. Some of this persists because we still reward ourselves, and each other, for doing it all, even when it comes at a cost. Exhaustion has become a proxy for success.
The result is a generation stretched thin. We celebrate opportunity, but we rarely acknowledge the cost of sustaining it without structural support.
This is where the distinction between equality and equity becomes essential. Equality offers the same opportunity. Equity accounts for different realities. Equal access, in practice, does not always produce equal experience.
Equity means designing systems that reflect how people actually live. One example is Minnesota’s new paid family and medical leave program, which took effect in 2026. It provides up to 12 weeks of family leave and 12 weeks of medical leave, with partial wage replacement and job protection. Unlike unpaid federal protections, it acknowledges a simple truth: Time off without income is not a realistic option for many families.
But equity cannot stop at leave policies. It requires workplace structures that anticipate caregiving responsibilities rather than treating them as disruptions — flexible scheduling, protected part‑time pathways and career trajectories that do not penalize temporary pauses. It means treating pregnancy, postpartum recovery and lactation not as peripheral issues, but as central to workforce participation.
It also requires a cultural recalibration. Equity is not only institutional; it is domestic. A more balanced distribution of unpaid labor, caregiving and household management would ease the disproportionate burden many women continue to carry. Without this shift, even the most progressive policies risk falling short.
And it demands coherence at the highest levels of leadership. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, many commentators noted that any administration placing limits on reproductive autonomy must also be prepared to support what follows — motherhood, childcare and family life. Without robust investment in paid leave, affordable childcare and maternal health, such decisions risk placing greater demands on women without providing the structural support to sustain them.
The goal is not to prescribe one path for women, but to preserve the ability to choose. For some, that may mean prioritizing career; for others, family; and for many, a shifting combination of both. A truly equitable system would neither force that choice nor penalize it. It would make space for ambition and caregiving to coexist without requiring women to stretch beyond their limits.
We have achieved equality in many domains, but equality alone cannot absorb the physical, emotional and logistical demands that still fall disproportionately on women. Without equity — without systems designed to account for these realities — women are left carrying twice the weight.
We have come far, but the women’s movement is not finished. Equality opened the door. Equity is what will keep us from collapsing under the weight.
Kristina Helms is a practicing clinician in Minnesota and a new mother whose work and lived experience shape her perspective on navigating the dual demands of a career in medicine and family life.
Related
