Anne-Marie Slaughter wrote a piece for The Atlantic Monthly entitled Why Women Still Can't Have It All. I had thought to write a true, point-by-point response to it, but to be honest, it took me days (okay, weeks) to finish the six page article, and I just don't have time to read it again, and even a third or fourth time, in order to give it a considered and true point-by-point response. I am, after all, a working mom whose job is not writing responses to other writers' essays. (I do this sort of thing in my spare time for fun.) But the article got me thinking about a couple of things and I thought I might as well type a few lines about those thoughts.
The article has gotten all kinds of backlash from all kinds of feminists. Among other things, Slaughter suggested that women and men react differently to their children, which is at least part of the reason why talented, well-trained, otherwise ambitious women choose "softer" or "easier" career paths than do their male counterparts. Ms. Slaughter suggests that the difference in the way men and women react to their kids, is both biological and sociologically programmed. In other words, girls are too different than boys.
This is, classically, antifeminist. But I also think that it is at least a little true. By way of example, I always feel guilty when I take a little time for myself and leave The Boy at daycare. The Working Dad never feels that same guilt. He told me that he feels that those little breaks make him better when he's with The Boy. And he's absolutely right about that. But I still feel a twinge of guilt every time I do it. Some feminists don't like the admission that women and men are in any way different because it might lead us down the Larry Summers path that ladies' brains just aren't wired for math and science (I paraphrase). And that's a fair point. But Slaughter also has a fair point that we need to recognize that there are differences in the way the sexes react to situations. The recognition, to me, is not a sign of capitulation or an acceptance that one way of reacting is better than another, but just that they are different. In recognizing differences, we can begin to attempt to create a workplace that is friendly and helpful to both men and women.
And that's a point I want to stress: we should strive for a workplace in which men and women can have "it all."
But first, what the heck is "it all?" How are we defining that? Because if we're defining "it all" as being the partner at a law firm who shows up to work the day after Christmas to get the call from a new client or the Night Creature who sends e-mails to associates at 2 a.m. when all good, sane people are sleeping (not that I'm thinking of any particular gentlemen I've known in my life, she said sarcastically), well, thank you very much, I don't want "it all."
And, in doing those sorts of things, these men did not have it all. They had powerful careers that made them a lot of money and took them away from their families. They left the care of their children to their wives while they pursued careers to the exclusion of nearly everything else. One of these gentlemen once related that his kids said that they were going to put on his tombstone "He lived. He worked. He died." They were joking, I think, but to even pose that sort of joke seems very, very sad.
"It all" is not having ultimate career success at the expense of one's family life and health. "It all" is having success in both. And we can all have that, men and women.
But it requires a recognition on the part of employers and society that both parents need support in being parents and employees. Slaughter says, "Ultimately, it is society that must change, coming to value choices to put family ahead of work just as much as those to put work ahead of family." That's true for all of us. Slaughter is right that there should not be "face time" macho. Slaughter talks about flexible schedules and the ability to work from home as ways by which one might balance work and family. But it's really not that easy. How does a doctor, for instance, or a police officer, work from home? Still, a recognition in these professions in which flexible schedules and telecommuting are not viable options that parents will be called away to the very important task of raising the next generation of citizens would help.
And even employers who offer the benefit of flexible scheduling -- in those sorts of jobs that can accomodate flexible scheduling -- often have restrictions on their use. My organization offers "telework," which allows an employee to work from home up to two days of every two-week pay period. I take advantage of the telework plan. My telework day is every Wednesday. Having a set day to telework does not offer the sort of flexibility that being able to work from home as life demands would offer. But it's a start.
This sort of recognition of the reality of family responsibilities is needed for the family, for moms and dads. I think that The Working Dad and I are lucky that we work where we work and have bosses who largely understand that we both will be toting the load when it comes to The Boy. The Working Dad stays home with The Boy just as much as, if not more than (given that I barely have any leave after my pregnancy and maternity leave), I do. I've written before about The Working Dad's contributions to our home. It is not a question of me, the fabulous lady lawyer, getting ahead in This Our Man's World, but of our family forging ahead in a fashion that allows The Working Dad and I to have professional successes and personal rewards. This is what our society and our workplaces need to come to grips with.
Feminism did not bring about the day of the dominant woman. It has brought us companionate, co-equal marriages. It has brought us to a place where men and women share the responsibility for rearing children and earning a living. It has brought us equality. Or at least, it approaches that equality . . . . (I should note that I am aware that not all women are married and so this co-equal marriage thing does not apply to, let alone work to the advantage of, a single woman. But I'm writing about my particular circumstances, which are that of a wife and mother. I do not discount that society needs also to address the needs of single parents too. I'm just not "screeding" about that today.)
And I think that our feminist foremothers need to recognize that if we have equality in the home and in the office, that means that both the mom and the dad are going to have obligations and responsibilities in both arenas. And those responsibilities are probably not going to allow either of them to be the Night Creature shooting out e-mails to harried associates in the dead of night. We, both sexes, will have to compromise and sacrifice a little to gain the greater good of a satisfying work/life balance for both partners.
To me, that's having "it all." Because if I had ultimate power and success in my career at the expense of my spouse's career, that would not be a mutually satisfying arrangement. Likewise, if he had a triumphant career while mine foundered, well, that would not be nice either.
Now, to my last thought, which really does not fit with the foregoing discussion of "it all."
Slaughter observed that the older generation of feminists -- those to whom I owe quite a lot -- feel disappointed in women like me who check out of the high power/high stress jobs favoring ones that offer more flexibility and work/life balance. My experience with this attitude is mixed, but Slaughter is not wrong that that attitude exists.
An anecdote from real life: After a two-year federal clerkship, I went to work for a large law firm for which I still have great affection. I have friends and valued and respected colleagues who still work there. I worked there for between three and four years. I tended to work 10 to 12 hour days. I was single had very little time or energy for a social life. We were extremely busy at work. I was gaining weight at an alarming rate because I did nothing else but work. I was extremely unhappy and burning out incredibly fast. Maybe this was my mistake because I didn't set good professional boundaries, but I was a young lawyer in my early 30s and I believed in that whole face time thing.
The bottom line was that I needed a different life: one in which I could do good legal work that I was proud of and still have time for regular exercise, hobbies, and even, dare I hope, romance. I got my resume together and eventually found a position as a government lawyer. I tendered my resignation. I was 33 years old.
On my last day at the office, as I was leaving the floor for the final time, one of the female partners -- a woman 15 to 20 years my senior, who had spent most of her career as a single woman -- called after me, "Give us a call when you get married!"
I had no prospect for marriage. I wasn't even dating casually.
Now, perhaps she was being sincere, but to my ears it sounded taunting and derisive. It sounded like code for what she perceived to be my lack of ambition, as demonstrated by my checking out of that particular career path. And I didn't even have the excuse of "but I have a baby at home." I did this for me, for my health and for my sanity.
And anyway, why must our ambition be focused only on career success? Can't we have an ambition to have a family someday? Isn't that also valid? And if it's not, how can you argue that women can have "it all"? Isn't having "it all" premised on the idea that you can have a successful career and a satisfying home life? And if it's not, then we've been lied to by the older generation. I sincerely hope that is not true.
Leaving law firm life was the best decision I ever made. I am happier and healthier as a result of the move and, in fact, I met my husband at the very job I left the firm for.
It is not failure to recognize that you want more in your life than 12 hour work days, whether or not you are a mom or a wife. It is not failure to want to define yourself, not just by the terms of your education and training, but by your avocational interests, family life and friendships. And, in fact, it is not failure or lack of ambition to desire to get married and have a family, nor is it failure to recognize that your current situation is a suboptimal path to attaining that goal.
I am ever grateful to our feminist foremothers for opening the doors and giving us choices. When we, however, choose not to walk through any particular door, it should not be seen as failing to succeed or an abdication of power so hard won by the generations before us. It should be seen as the exercise of a bona fide choice . . . a choice that really did not exist 40 years ago.
