Slaughter says that since the beginnings of feminism, women have been told that they can have it all. Yet, in an honest discussion of a woman's opportunities and responsibilities, that is not true, nor is it helpful to women who are already expected to have and do it all. Slaughter wrote, "economists Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson have shown that women are less happy today than their predecessors were in 1972, both in absolute terms and relative to men..." Later she states, "What’s more, among those who have made it to the top, a balanced life still is more elusive for women than it is for men. A simple measure is how many women in top positions have children compared with their male colleagues. Every male Supreme Court justice has a family. Two of the three female justices are single with no children. And the third, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, began her career as a judge only when her younger child was almost grown. The pattern is the same at the National Security Council: Condoleezza Rice, the first and only woman national-security adviser, is also the only national-security adviser since the 1950s not to have a family." Thus her point has been proven, women can't have families and compete for top positions in the working world. Slaughter claims that teaching women they can have it all does a great injustice; if she can't do all that she's told she can, a woman will take it as a personal flaw, thinking- I could have had it all and done it all, but I failed- when really, its just not true.
Slaughter continues, "In Midlife Crisis at 30, Mary Matalin recalls her days working as President Bush’s assistant and Vice President Cheney’s counselor: Even when the stress was overwhelming—those days when I’d cry in the car on the way to work, asking myself “Why am I doing this??”—I always knew the answer to that question: I believe in this president. But Matalin goes on to describe her choice to leave in words that are again uncannily similar to the explanation I have given so many people since leaving the State Department: I finally asked myself, “Who needs me more?” And that’s when I realized, it’s somebody else’s turn to do this job. I’m indispensable to my kids, but I’m not close to indispensable to the White House."
My thoughts:
- Slaughter barely acknowledged the effects on children in families where both parents are seeking career ambitions. That is one factor in the "having it all" equation that cannot be left out. She seems to see it from the Mother's perspective only; ie. the mother having a difficult time leaving her kids, or her yearnings to be home with her children. I think understanding the effects of the children would influence the conclusions a great deal, while Slaughter seems to see women and their sacrifices as somewhat isolated.
- She is speaking to an audience of career women who have the opportunity to have received law degrees, medical degrees or PhDs, women who's husbands are supportive of their seeking for a career as well as women who have an energy level I've never seen. This article is almost irrelevant to the average working woman. Most of those women have been required to work because our society has come to rely on double income families. Most of them don't have the privilege to seek out fulfilling careers of their choice.
- That being said, Slaughter recognizes that women in higher jobs, such as herself, would have to be the ones making changes for all women. She is, herself, an example of a career woman not ashamed of the importance of her family. As a dean, she continued to make her family a priority by being home for family dinner every night. And instead of hiding that fact, she was open and honest about her desires to be available for her family. I love that she used her authority to show that caring about your family doesn't make you weak.
- One question Slaughter asked was, why are men revered for sacrifice of family in the name of public service, the inverse being seen as almost immoral (it kind of reminds me of ancient Rome), while women are not even appreciated for sacrifice of public service in the name of family obligations. She feels that honoring the responsibility of a mother and appreciating it would in turn lead society to a more understanding, sympathetic approach to working mothers. Slaughter wants to see employers help women lead balanced lives.
- Slaughter's example to leave the State Department is a great example of sacrifices career women need to be ready to make. She encourages women to be ready to turn down some promotions and be sensitive to your domestic responsibilities (though I think she would die before using the words "domestic responsibilities")
But if an honest discussion of women's progress in the working world is what Slaughter is looking for, what about the domestic responsibilities? No one wants to talk about it these days but those responsibilities are real. Why can't society honor a woman who stays at home in the name of family duties over career aspirations? I am guilty myself of looking at career women and thinking, wow, they were so ambitious and driven. But really, seeing my sisters take care of their children day after day, sacrificing personal goals and ambitions to raise their children to be good citizens and successful human beings, has made me understand a true hero. Are these women not driven? I think "drive" to do something selfless is a drive stronger than any other kind. So, no. Women can't have it all. And yes. It depresses me, as a feminist who wants it all, to say that. But instead of us pushing society to expect more from women, and to pretend everyone should be happy leaving their children in daycare and working a 9-5 job everyday, lets just celebrate what women accomplish everyday, doing whatever they do, and all the sacrifices they make!
To read Slaughter's whole article, here is the link. I highly recommend it. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/6/
No comments:
Post a Comment