Much of the media focus has been on the notion that older feminists have somehow lied to younger women about the realities of juggling work and family. They've used Slaughter's experience to imply that women can't have a productive career and a happy family life. Slaughter gave up a demanding job, yes, but she didn't leave the work force. She simply went back to her old job, one which allowed her the flexibility to balance work and family better.
Slaughter did not intend to say that women can never have it all, a biological truth she only just came to realize. Quite the opposite actually. She clearly understands that most women in the 21st century don't have a choice. They have to find a way to balance work and family. And this is where Slaughter's main point lies. The majority of women will need to work while raising a family. That's not going to change any time soon. What can change is the way companies deal with their female (and men too quite frankly) employees. Companies need to become more flexible so that women can have more time with their families. That flexibility will create more productive female employees, and that's a win win for everyone.
The media tried to frame Slaughter's article as some existential choice modern women face. Maybe for wealthy women, sure, but for an overwhelming majority of women, there really isn't a choice. Slaughter knows this, and I think she was trying to wake up corporate America. Companies do have a choice. They can work with women to make it easier to balance work and family.
As the father of two girls, this article really has me thinking. I can only hope that by the time they are ready to enter the workforce, companies that don't promote a positive work/family balance will be few and far between.
So well said. If only society truly valued women and invested in women and families. Just imagine how that could change the world.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we're hitting a tipping point, and employers will see the wisdom in being more flexible with employees raising families. I'm glad Slaughter brought the issue to light.
DeleteIt's not just women but men as well as there are a lot of single dads out there. I think most companies don't value employees' home lives full stop. Taking time off to raise kids isn't viewed as valid life experience when you go back to work - when actually, you learn how to manage disputes, time management, and all sorts of other transferrable skills!
ReplyDeleteYou're right about men, and not just single dads. I think most men would love more flexibility at work so they can spend more time with their families. Men and women who don't feel guilty and resentful about missing valuable time with their families will certainly be happier, more productive employees. Business has got to know this is true.
DeleteI've mentioned before that both my parents were teachers. And there were four of us kids. I have no idea how my mother did it. She was also the one who cooked and cleaned the house too, though my father did a good job of making sure we kids stayed out of her way. Maybe having summers off to recharge the batteries helped.
ReplyDeleteThose summers do recharge the batteries. Teachers definitely have it better than most professions. We obviously have more time for family, but even when school and family conflict, other teachers are usually more than happy to help out. As a teacher, I am very appreciative of the flexibility I have to be a part of my kids' lives.
DeleteNice post.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nick that it is about companies valuing families of women and of men. How many companies actually give a man a decent about of time off to be with his new born child? How many men would be potentially laughed at if they told the boss that they were going to need to leave to take their kids to ballet? I think that companies need to realize that people have lives outside of their job and provide way more flexibility.
ReplyDeletePS... I gave you an award on my blog.
http://1219sibmtt.blogspot.com/2012/06/liebster-award-goes-to-me.html
I don't think that anyone "has it all" per se. I listened to this woman on NPR talk about being the head of foreign policy directly under Secretary Clinton, and I'm thinking that is a REALLY intense job. The thing is, no matter what you do, by making a choice, you are choosing one thing over another.
ReplyDeleteExample: I'm reading this book and not that one. I'm at this job and not that one. I'm having babies and not working.
Her "beef" was that she had to leave the job of her dreams if what she wanted was to raise her two boys. She made the right choice in my opinion. As an atheist, I feel we only have one life. There is very little that matters in the grand scope of the universe, and we only live for a single blip of it on an insignificant world. Why turn away from love (which is really hard to find) so that you can dictate foreign policy for a bunch of shitheads? I wouldn't care if my boss was Jesus.
That just doesn't sound like a job worth doing if the other choice was to spend time with those I loved before I kick the bucket.
This woman with her huge college background and astounding/cushy job just came across as a whiner to me.