MIRIAM Gonzalez Durantez, the lawyer who happens to be married to Nick Clegg, wants what men have.

In response to a question about "having it all," Ms Durantez said: "I want to have what men have. So if many men have children and a job … I do not know why I cannot have that."

Well, indeed. Though when Ms Durantez says "job" what she means is career. It is only high-flying women who are asked this question. No-one wonders if a woman who chooses to be a cleaner is concerned about "having it all". The assumption is she does not and has not, though she may be perfectly content with her lot.

It is rich and successful women who worry. Those who can afford battalions of help, the irony being that the women they employ are probably not "having it all" by their employer's standards.

The artist Tracey Emin also had something to say about having it all and why she has chosen not to. Emin maintains children would "compromise" her work.

She added: "There are good artists who have children. Of course there are. They are called men. It's hard for women. They are emotionally torn."

So, there you are: two successful women, one justifying her children and one justifying her lack.

Superwomen of the 1980s worked to show it was important and possible not to just stay at home a contented slave, and I would never suggest women of Generation Y drop the flag.

But the premise is still, 30 years on, that women must make a choice men do not have to, in part because we are expected to be emotionally torn. Why is this still a trope? Why are men content with the assumption they care a little less about their offspring? And that it still stands that men simply don't have children while women "sacrifice" having children?

Ms Durantez says the most vital choice a woman makes is whom to have children with: how supportive will they be and how willing will they be to take on caring responsibilities? Again, the default notion is children are the woman's responsibility and a man who pitches in is a prize.

Women still do the vast majority of childcare not just because society expects them to but because they expect to. Next year when shared parental leave comes into force I wonder how many will take it and divide it equally. I wonder what impact it would have on workplaces if men had to go to their bosses and announce that they were expecting a baby, that they would need six months off and that they would need to go part time. I'm not sure we'll find out because I expect most women are unhappy with the status quo but equally unwilling to relinquish that early time with their children.

While women are still asked about having it all, I wonder if men really do have it all? Would some rather be at home, enduring the relentless grind and delight of their babies? Would they quite enjoy working three or four days a week? Why don't more couples, drop a day each rather than having the women drop two? I expect the answer is more than just financial.

For women "having it all" is having meaningful time with their children and a successful career. Ms Durantez wants what men have but what do men have? Men might more easily have a successful career but do they have meaningful time with their children?

Are they not missing out on the tiny, daily milestones women are loath to miss? We never talk about the stress involved in being a provider or the adjustment needed in marrying your equal but winding up with a dependent.

This conversation began in the 1950s but we have not yet managed to create an ideal for either gender. To do so we need to redefine what we mean by "all" and, more importantly, recast our idea of what is typically male and what is typically female.