E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe debate over whether working women can have it all and who’s to blame if they don’t is getting lots of attention this week because another high-powered woman entered the fray.
“I believe that we can ‘have it all at the same time.’ But not today, not with the way America’s economy and society are currently structured,” writes Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former U.S. State Department official, in an article titled “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” in The Atlantic this week.
Courtesy of Princeton
Anne-Marie Slaughter
Slaughter is a Princeton politics professor who left her job last year as director of policy planning in the State Department in part to spend more time with her family. Her essay has brought the issue to the forefront nationally, creating a dialogue that could be a watershed moment for the work-life-balance wrangle.
With women now making up about 50 percent of the workforce, working mothers are brushing aside the mommy wars and finally asking hard questions about whether the 1950s "Company Man" model needs a serious retooling. Given that women still make less than their male counterparts and hold fewer than 20 percent of the corner office seats, everyone is wondering when equity will finally come to the workplace and make it more friendly for working women.
Slaughter sees her piece as a call to action.
"What we know about culture change is that there are tipping points," she told the New York Times' parenting blog Thursday. "Norms can change dramatically. On the one hand, it’s harder because we can’t point to very specific things and say, change that, but once it starts changing, it’s likely to change much faster than we’d expect. I’m basically trying to give people the space to start demanding those kinds of changes."
The key question, what needs to change?
Two well-known successful women with divergent thoughts on the issue are at the heart of this debate.
In one corner is Slaughter, who believes working moms have been sold a bill of goods when it comes to work-life balance. In the other corner is Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, who’s gotten work-life-acclaim for her candid views during an Internet video TED Talk in 2010, and subsequent speeches, on how women can juggle it all if they work hard enough.
Mike Segar / Reuters
Sheryl Sandberg
From Slaughter’s article:
“I still strongly believe that women can ‘have it all’ (and that men can too). I believe that we can ‘have it all at the same time.’ But not today, not with the way America’s economy and society are currently structured.”
From Sandberg’s talk:
“If two years ago you didn’t take a promotion and some guy next to you did. If Three years ago you stopped looking for new opportunities, you’re going to be bored because you should have kept your foot on the gas pedal. Don’t leave before you leave. Stay in. Keep your foot on the gas pedal until the very day you need to leave to take a break for a child.”
Slaughter actually called Sandberg out on her statements, writing: “Although couched in terms of encouragement, Sandberg’s exhortation contains more than a note of reproach. We who have made it to the top, or are striving to get there, are essentially saying to the women in the generation behind us: ‘What’s the matter with you?’”
On Friday, the New York Times weighed in on the issue with its own piece titled “Elite Women Put New Spin on Old Debate Over Balancing Work and Family” by Jodi Kantor.
Slaughter’s article, Kantor writes, “added to a renewed feminist conversation that is bringing fresh twists to bear on longstanding concerns about status, opportunity and family. Unlike earlier iterations, it is being led not by agitators who are out of power, but by elite women at the top of their fields, like the comedian Tina Fey, the Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg and now Ms. Slaughter. In contrast to some earlier barrier-breakers from Gloria Steinem to Condoleezza Rice, these women have children, along with husbands who do as much child-rearing as they do, or more.”
While women like Slaughter and Sandberg have the prominence to get their voices heard, are they really speaking for average working women?
We’d love to hear from all of you on what you think needs to be done to accommodate women in the workplace today. Please share your ideas with us on how your employer can better help you juggle work and family.
Leave a Comment:
Ugh...this article divided the room before it even began. Why is it only in regards to women?
When I hear the term 'work-life balance' I picture a utopia where both sexes have a happy balance between their work-life schedule. Whatever that balance is will vary depending on the person, but I think it's safe to say that at this point in time the balance is tipped exceedingly toward the work portion of the scale.
I don't know about the rest of you, but that is not a happy balance for me. I want to work less, have more free time, and yet already under the current system that would leave me in a spot where I would not be able to afford my free time. I can barely afford it now while I work full time. And that's not because I live beyond my means, but because even my mediocre means are beyond what is a pathetic compensation for the amount of my life I give up to work.
I reckon it's the same for most people who have jobs. There is no balance. It's just work, work, work, and very few moments of actual good rest & relaxation.
I just can't fathom why we work so much and yet never seem to get ahead. The system is broken and we all blindly follow it down the drain. None of this matters, but we cling to it like a baby to a pacifier. Afraid to give it up, and cry when it gets taken away.
We should cry for it to go away because it is a sad, soul crushing, miserable existence serving corporate America every single day of my life, and yours, whether you like to admit it or not, whether male or female, whether democrat or republican, employed or unemployed.
We're missing out on our lives to serve a world in which the only thing to look forward to is the next fancy gadget they throw at us to distract us from how sh*tty our lives are! Shouldn't we look forward to what's beyond our measly presence on Earth? We have a whole Universe brimming with potential, yet NASA has no budget and we sit on our a55e5 preoccupied with clinging to a dead horse that the elite 1% have picked to the bone!
You are responsible for the lifestyle you choose to lead. While I am retired now, I fully enjoyed the many years I spent working for a major corporation. I also fully enjoyed raising a family. If you are not happy with your life, try changing directions instead of whining. This continues to be the best and most free country in which to live.
Peter, your earning years feel in the best times this world has ever seen. Post secondary education is more expensive than it ever has been and more jobs than ever require it. People my age get to look forward to no retirement and no SS. Work till you drop is the new reality.
Timactionfigures, all people must do something to provide for themselves. In our modern world, most of us "work". The alternative is to provide for ourselves by growing our own food and building our own shelters from naturally available materials. Most choose to work, instead.
Everyone has to do something. If it is not working a soul sucking job in corporate America, it may be nurturing a milk cow and praying for rain so that the crops don't wither. Even those fortunate few who support themselves by doing a job that they profess to love, must get tired of doing it. A hobby and a passion that has turned into a livelihood must get tiring after a while. So, what to do but to work?
Productivity should be measured by how much you get accomplished, not how many hours a day you sit at the office. Why should I be given all the flexibility I want if I can get the job done in a shorter amount of time than someone who takes twice as long?
oops--should be "Why shouldn't I be given all the flexibility I want if I can get the job done..."
Women with children generally have a disadvantage in a high powered career. Women generally take more responsibility for the kids, so when the kids are, inevitably sick, it's usually mom who cares for them. That means more unplanned time off from work than men, and that's a drag on their careers.
Sure women can have it all. But "all" means something different to every woman. The slant of this story was about women in executive positions, and "all" to them probably means something far different that what "all" means to the non-executive working woman.
The debate should be about whether or not we, as a society, want to help ourselves (as families) achieve two things:
1. Leverage BOTH husband and wife's career (=stronger more competitive economy)
2. Accommodate the couple (mother and father) with some flexibility so that they can also raise healthy and well balanced children (= better achieving children).
It isn't so much a woman vs man debate, but that of a mother and father debate. And because women have entered the work force fairly recently, both by necessity and by choice, they are still trying to establish their boundaries. So pressure is on them.
Are we willing to reassess our work environment? Are women with power willing to force work environment changes? Are men willing to accept their equal and sometime less than equal roles (as income earners)?
You tell me.
why are all these discussions always assume men and women are always equal. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING, that is why we have 2 kinds of bathrooms EVERYWHERE in the world. Only one kind of the species can bear and nurture a child better than the other kind. Say what you want about some caring men who can gently take care of a baby's diaper without complaining, THAT IS AN EXCEPTION.
There is nothing wrong with being a woman and being faithful to their gender roles as biology has dictated them to be. If you are ashamed of who you are because your biological needs is vastly more complex than men then you are going to just defeat yourself no matter what you do.
You are so ignorant. You are just plan rude. The only differences between an man and a woman is there bodies and mind set. Other than that they can do everything the same or better. Just because you gender is a woman shouldn't mean stay at home take care of children. Just because you gender is a male doesn't mean all you have to do is go to work. you biology did not dictate you gender role society did mainly men did. Men dictated what each gender can do not biology. Saying that only one gender is nurturing and gentle is not true it happens to a lot of men they are caring and nurturing. This is why thing are never going to change because of narrow minded humans like you. And the article did not say they were equal. Woman are not they are still fighting for it. This article has nothing to really do with equality it about wether or not they can have it both.
Define "all". Is "all" the
Nobody, but NOBODY, "has it all." The idea that someone can is a fundamental contradiction of reality. We live in a world of scarcity, especially with respect to time. There are only twenty four hours in a day -- spend one on "activity A" and that is one less hour you have to spend on "activity B." As Ludwig von Mises pointed out: every last single conscious human action is an unavoidable trade-off. Nobody can eat their cake and have it too. Anyone who says otherwise is either naive, looking to sell something impossible to a rube, or else attempting to have their own cake while eating someone else's. Everyone here proclaiming that "business policies" have to change or "society" has to change need to answer the question: voluntarilly or involuntarilly? Anyone who wants government to mandate such "change" is really asking for people with guns to steal from someone else so that they can have more.
We need better family leave policies in the US and more investment in education - kids are our future and we're not investing enough.
Single dad here, the mom left 7 yrs ago. Left me with an autistic 8 year old and a regular-flavor girl 4.
Enjoying the thread, and the irony
I didn't read the article; however, it's my experience that senior leaders are repulsed that employees want a life. It is as though the senior leaders were able to reach their positions by giving 'everything' to the workplace and they are bitter.
In other words, these 'senior leaders' over-achieved and secured their positions by working 17 hours/day - by expunging their families through neglect and ultimately divorce after divorce, all for the sake of their 'jobs.' Now, these same "high" (read: over) achievers are in a position to help regular employees have a family and life and they are too bitter to help. Management expects to see employees work 18/hr days and neglect and divorce their families in the same fashion - only then will they feel vindicated. It's real sick and the workplace would be better off if these senior managers would simply die off.
No one gets to have it all today. Given work schedules, unpaid overtime and an unending requirement to improve productivity with fewer workers, no one can have a private life, family and a job these days, and succeed at all three. We as a culture need to seriously reevaluate and change our approach to the job, the family and a private life. Business has us all living as wage slaves today; it's time for a major readjustment. Let the Chinese and Indians live as wage slaves if they choose; we've had enough of it.
I am a working mom who has lucked out with a.) a very flexible job that judges me on accomplishments rather than clock-punching (I can pick up my son with a fever, but then work until 2 am at home so long as the job gets done) and b.) a fantastic husband who divides everything with me 50/50. It seems to me that rather than a "men vs. women" shouting match, a more valuable discussion might be to question why managements have made 8-6 a standard work day. A person/two people cannot effectively run a house, raise children, or WORK PRODUCTIVELY like that, regardless of their gender. As an aside, if my husband or I made enough money to support our household individually, we would both still work. It's a lot of who we are.
No one can have it all. There are always trade-offs for both sexes. Either you spend quality time with your children during their growing years or you spend them at work, excelling in your career. I'll take the latter since once the kids grow up you can't get it back while excelling at work, well, what does that mean anyway. One sets the goals and expectations to excel. Material wealth is secondary.
This is all nonsense. Working moms make a choice by going to work and then complain when they don't have enough time to take care of their children or complain that their employer doesn't accomodate their schedule. It's called a job. In my many years as a highly paid corporate puppet, most working "mothers" spent their off time getting their hair and nails done, going out with their girlfriends, or taking vacations without the precious children they claim to not have enough time for. Women need to get over themselves. And, before everyone jumps on me for being a jerk, I am a working mom who made over $100,000 a year and "had it all" until one day I realized all equaled nothing. I purposely chose to go to work at a school at a $70,000/year paycut because it allows me to be with my children when they are not in school. Personally, my "all" is my family. My children need a Mom; they don't need more shiny toys or fancy electronics. I found the secret to happiness and it has nothing to do with money.
Cooperation, civility, compromise--indeed, let's bring back the three Cs! We can start with our posts online, and spread it by sharing with our 'others:' the right, for example, if you're progressive. The gay, if you're straight. The peacenik, if you're a hawk.
We can only find solutions if we practice the 3 Cs. (Then, I think, we may still need a revolution by the majority--if we don't wipe ourselves out 1st!)
So, just what does it mean to "have it all"? What is that? That is one of those ill defined expressions much like the "American dream". IMHO, these are old and tired expressions that are meaningless. I would like to see them go away.
I see my daughter trying to work full time, commute, and be a mother, wife and house keeper. It is difficult. But, we sent her to college and gave her an education so that she could have a career. So, what is she to do? Is she to deny her biology and not have children? This is her first, and last, as she delayed children until she is in her late 30's. It is a constant struggle, and her husband is not amongst the most enlightened of modern males. He still expects her to assume most of the traditional roles of wife and mother. I suspect that he in not unlike most males in that regard.
These women in this article are not women who are in the trenches with most working women. They do seem to be speaking from an elevated position. The first woman actually quit her professional job to be with her family. Most working women do not have that option. My daughter can not step out of her professional position to raise a child. She would never get back in where she is now. And, she is the main provider for the family. She has the higher paying job with more chance for advancement.
These women do not speak for most, I don't think. It is hard for working women. And, males need to step up and take up more slack. It is most often the woman who is expected to juggle her job and the doctor appointments, school meetings, and pickup from daycare when there is a fever.
tlzmo, do you really believe that working is a "choice" for most women? I would disagree with that.
Kudos to you for finding a job that gives you time with your kids. But, all can not work for the school system. Jobs with the school and with school schedules have been coveted jobs for working mothers. They are limited. You are fortunate to be amongst the few.
Kudos to you for finding what the "all" is in "having it all"! You are right that quality of life is what is important, not acquiring more toys in life. However, not all women are working just to have more toys. I am sure that you realize that.
No one has ever "had it all." You can't be 2 places at once. Men in the 1950s were able to have a career and family because their children's primary caregiver was at home. They missed out on a lot and were often seen as distant figures by their children. Women must give up the idea of being their children's primary caregiver if they want a career too, but chances are their husband also works so they must cede this position to a babysitter, daycare, etc..Even celebrities have armies of nannies, much as they try to hide this fact. Quality affordable childcare is what we need, and an adjustment to our expectations.
It's a myth to think that anyone can "have it all." The definition of "having it all" is different for each individual. For every gain, there is a sacrifice. Each person must decide what is most important in their lives, strive for that, and let go of the rest. There is no linear path to happiness. Forget about it.