Why Women Still Can't Have It All
Here we go again. Another day. Another controversial headline on parenting riling everybody up.
Well, almost.
Anne-Marie Slaughter’s piece for The Atlantic is no puff piece aimed at selling magazines (although I’m sure it has). It is a six-page essay from the former Policy Director of the State Department on the impossibility of pursuing a demanding career and parenthood at the same time. I found it emotional but authoritative. I found it insightful and forward-thinking. More than that, I connected with it on a deeply personal level.
Remember I also left behind a career in D.C. - heck, I even wrote something with a similar title. Of course, let’s not fool ourselves. I am no Anne-Marie Slaughter. I am not a tenured professor at Princeton. I teach part-time at a community college. I was not a higher up at the State Department. I was merely a legislative correspondent - about as low as you go on Capitol Hill.
However, I found myself nodding passionately while reading her piece and I left D.C. because I agree with her wholeheartedly. As a young female staffer, I saw the writing on the wall. Most of my bosses were men. One female boss was childless and the one who did have children eventually left to find a more flexible schedule. My friends in law firms fared little better working long hours and weekends.
I couldn’t do it. I had read The Feminine Mistake. I knew the economic and professional risk I was taking by stepping out of the workforce and leaving D.C. behind but I didn’t see any another option.
Of course, as she points out, this is only an issue for a select group of women. Most careers don’t require the type of 24/7 devotion of which Slaughter speaks. More importantly, for a huge number of women who work one (or more) hourly wage jobs it doesn’t really matter either way. Opting out is not even a choice. They work long and hard to feed their children. Period.
So, if what she is saying doesn’t apply to everyone, why does it matter at all? Because while I don’t believe in trickle down economics, I do believe in trickle down policy. If the people in power don’t include women and mothers, then the priorities and issues important to us will never be a part of the discussion. Of course, how do we get to the table if we’re forced to give up what we hold dear in order to pull up a chair?
Hopefully, we start having these discussions elsewhere in our everyday lives. We have them loudly. We have them often. We keep having them until things start to change. I think Anne-Marie Slaughter’s piece starts us down that road and I’m thankful...controversial headline aside.
We’d love to start a discussion with all of you. What do you think? Is it possible to have it all?
~ Sarah Stewart Holland
29 Comments
Reader Comments (29)
The simplest answer is no. Even in a 'flexible' job as teaching it is still not possible to have it all. There is not enough time, or enough of me to go around. I think in order to be great at something that thing must have your full attention. I have decided that teaching is no longer going to claim my full attention (or even half of it) and that my own children deserve to have all of me that I can muster.
I could really write a dissertation on this subject, so I'll stop here before I get too far.
Because it boils down to the company making money. A company/business/firm whatever it is, is there to be successful and make money for its shareholders. They are not there to cater to the working mother OR father. You are reminded everyday that you chose to have a family, you chose to put your family needs ahead of company needs. The company will focus on who can meet their needs to the fullest.
I work for a very large financial mega monster. I am in upper management and am 100% vested, so I have more than paid my dues. In a perfect world they would allow more than 1/2 sick day per month and 2 weeks vacation per year. They would always give you holidays off, paid maternity leave, double the sick time and vacation whether you have children or not but they don't. They are there to be on top and if you can't get them there, they will find someone who can and will.
It is a painful reality mothers and fathers face everyday. Most could stay home but they would be living paycheck to paycheck on one income and some just can't do that. Even if they are upper or upper middle class. It's not about what sacrifices you can make to keep one parent at home but it's about survival and taking care of your family.
That said, having two working parents isn't all that bad on the child or children. Your child learns routine, social skills and has far less separation issues early on than they do when they start real school. Sometimes when both parents work and the child is in a day program or all day pre school, it brings a sense of balance to everyone. I don't think my daughter has missed out on anything with me or my husband being home with her during the day.
So you can't have it "all" but it's not all that bad. My company can't give me a hug or love me back or want to hold my hand. I'd rather have it "all" with family than work anyway. I look at it this way. Those who don't want children deserve the climb a bit higher on the corporate ladder. Everyone needs something to accomplish in life.
Thanks for the comments ladies!
I agree with most everything you said. The only thing I'd push back a bit on with you Tess is the idea that what corporations are doing is always best for the bottom line. It's not. Pushing employees that way is terrible for productivity, retention, not to mention health care costs. There are companies that find that happy medium (see the California effect Anne-Marie talks about in the essay.) I also don't think someone "deserves" to rise higher on the corporate ladder because they chose to remain childless. Again back to the essay, we need to shift our thinking on parents and maybe see their drive and discipline (not to mention commitment) as an asset to a company instead of a liability.
-SSH
PS. Y'all should know Aimee has TWINS so the fact that she shows up at the right school in the morning is more than I could probably do - so success!
I think you missed the point. To deserve is not meant to be childless but if someone desires to work the 80 hour work week to get to the top then by all means, they can have the corner office. I don't want it. I chose family over the fabulous office and I am more than fine with it. I am fine with doing what I do for the long term. Companies reward those who give it their all in their professional life, not their personal. I would love for my employer to pat me on the back or acknowledge all the juggling I do to meet my deadlines and goals but that's not the bottom line or in the business plan. The drive and discipline they are looking for is what is best for the success of the company.
Also, this is how it really is. This is reality. There are companies out there who are very supportive of families but they are few and far between. I agree, pushing employees that way is terrible for productivity, retention, not to mention health care costs but this is what we face everyday. I never said it was right or fair, I just said this is how it is for the majority of working parents, not all. I am fortunate enough to have a good job as well as my husband so that we have good health insurance, we can afford family vacations, the mortgage, two cars and private school tuition.
Does having it all really even matter? Just be happy with what you have.
Watch the movie Baby Boom. Sure it's fluff but it's as accurate as it was then as it is now. If your job doesn't allow you all or some of what you need, you either decide to leave for something that can like another job, career or even leave it all for home or just deal.
I don't want to raise my son in a world where he thinks he can have it all. Just because you work hard at something doesn't mean you're entitled to its rewards. If we raise our children thinking they can have it all and will get it all we are only setting them up for disappointment.
When my wife and I started a family I turned down a huge promotion because I knew it would mean more time away from them. Sure, the money would have been nice but you can't put a price on family. Also, I wouldn't be able to give my company all the time and attention they were looking for regarding the new position. If you look in any HR manual, there are no special clauses for your family. You know what you're getting in to when you have the job you have and decide to start a family. I learned pretty fast that the company doesn't change what it does or how it does it just to accommodate you and your life change.
I have to disagree John. I want my sons to know they can be active participatory fathers AND follow their passions. Sure, having it all is not the best way to describe that but I think we all suffer (including companies) when people can't dedicate themselves to the people and pursuits they hold dear.
It's all about what's most important to you. If children are your priority then work takes a back seat. If work is your priority then you need to explain to your kids why you're not picking them up from school or in the office on the weekends. If you think you can prove what people are saying wrong then challenge yourself to going back to working full time in a firm or office that dictates your schedule, time off, etc... along with your husband still working full time and make a professional goal for yourself on where you want to be in a year or five or even ten. Do this without the help of family outside the house.
I made that mistake with my first child. I chose work over her and regretted it. The big job and big money wasn't worth it. I took a step down and a pay cut but I was able to find that balance I was trying so hard to find. It made a perfect example to my children that you can't always get what you want. I wanted to keep my position but I just couldn't. I wasn't a failure in their eyes but more a hero.
These are some of the hardest choices to make in your adult life. It's never easy or fair but so is life and so is corporate America.
Ideally we could have careers about which we are passionate and be active, participatory parents. Men and women.
In reality, many of us have passions that simply cannot support a family. (I will never be a professional marathoner, for example. My husband is not in a position to become a professional pilot right now.)
We've analyzed the *minimum* we need to survive -- I'm talking rent, utilities, and groceries. Not including retirement or college savings, clothes, entertainment, vacations, or car payments. It was humbling to see that "what we love" wouldn't pay the bills. Insurance coverage alone limits our choices.
Sometimes we just have to pay the bills by working for a company that values the bottom line over family life.
It KILLS me to write that, but it's true for us and others.
Janice, do you think there's a better way or that this is just the way it is?
So what I'm hearing over and over is that's the reality (which I don't disagree with) but do we think Slaughter is right and things can change?
I have worked in corporate America for over 20 years and have seen this pressure on both mothers and fathers. For the most part it is just the way it is. There are companies who do offer flex time or peak work hours or work from home options but basically if you can't devote your time and attention to the bottom line, the company will find someone who can. Those who do have those perks I mentioned are very fortunate and it's nice to know there are employers out there who value family.
There is no better way but a realistic way. You should accept the notion that the second you decide to have a child that it's not about you anymore but about your family. I think your passion is right along with everyone else but your perception of reality is not. We all deserve better, if you have children or not but like it was mentioned before, what the company cares about at the end of the day is their productivity. Not if your call night or sales meeting runs late and you miss dinner with the family. My husband and I both put our professional dreams aside to achieve our personal dreams. It was the best decision we ever made. Those professional goals can wait. Potty training and birthday parties can't. It doesn't mean I'm not as good as the suits, it just means I prefer this over that.
I don't think so. She believes, "We may need to put a woman in the White House before we are able to change the conditions of the women working at Walmart." She's forgetting not all women in corporate America are mothers. Not all women want the same thing. My sister does not have children nor wants them. If women with children are given special benefits what about the women who don't have children?
"We must insist on changing social policies and bending career tracks to accommodate our choices, too." Like it has been said over and over again, if you can't do the job the company will find someone who will.
It's our fault, both men and women. We have demanded so much from banks, lawyers, govenment, hospitals grocery stores, schools, etc... That the only way to meet the demands are to put the pressure on the working mother and father is to clock in and work. The next time you're waiting longer in line at the bank and complain about it, it's probably because that teller is home with her sick child who couldn't go to school. Because of your complaint, available sick time has now been decreased and that mother OR father can't stay home with their sick child but find someone else who can or will. Hopefully with a friend or relative. If not then either the child has to go to school or you will be forced to violate policy and take unpaid sick time which means having a policy violation you can be terminated.
It's our fault as society why things are the way they are. Everyone's "All" is different.
Janelle, I don't think it's special benefits especially when so often parents are just asking for what everyone else receives and not to be penalized. The marathon runner for example really stuck out to me. Both employees could ask or time off but one would be seen as more dedicated and one less.
To some companies though, it is a special benefit. A company I worked for offered family care time to care for children, parents or anyone in your family outside the sick time provided for you to use for yourself. Enough people fussed that because they did not have children or family to care for that they could not use those FCT days since FCT was not for personal use or vacation time, just time to care for family only. The next year when our HR policies were updated, the FCT was taken away to make it fair for everyone.
I think it's more special to have NO ONE ever you would need time to care for parents, children, or a family member. Don't you?
I don't think you are listening to your readers. You asked if having it all is possible and they are trying to tell you it's not. They are trying to tell you that no matter what, you will always be made to feel guilty and have to give up some form of your professional dream if you choose family over career. They are trying to tell you it's more than just a women in the workplace issue but in fact an real issue with everyone, everyday.
You're living in your blog world. The problem in this country is that people are being forced to make these painful choices everyday and guilted beyond belief when it's not in the best interest of the company. There is no one solution but many and it's more than just getting women in government. It's getting your friends, neighbors, colleagues, bosses, etc... to recognize the problem and do something about it.
It's different than writing a blog or working from home or teaching a class part time. You're not faced with it and living with it. You're not away from your child 10 hours a day. Yes, you have obligations but nothing like what these people are facing everyday. You said it yourself you saw the writing on the wall. So why are you now trying your hardest to argue? Instead, ask how do they do it? How do they balance it all? How were they made to feel?
Oh no Casy not arguing that point (in fact earlier I said I don't disagree with the reality people are describing) AT ALL. Definitely know that many face that struggle but deep down I'm an optimist. Always have been. I just want to believe it doesn't have to be that way forever.
A very good article on CNN.com. It's a follow up up to the Slaughter article pretty much explaining that even if you make it to the top, you don't have it all. It's in the In America/ opinion dated 6/27.
http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/27/opinion-no-one-at-the-top-gets-to-have-it-all/?hpt=us_bn1
Sienna, Thanks for sharing! It was definitely an interesting piece although I'm not sure I agree with her premise. I don't think Slaughter assumes those at the top have to make sacrifices or even pictures an utopian society in which they won't have to be made. I think she's just asking does it have to be this extreme? Yes, all of us male and female have to make sacrifices when we become parents. No way around that but does it have to be a permanent sacrifice? Is there no way to adjust our cultural (and corporate) expectations around ambition and success?
I actually think the arena of law firms the author writes about is a great example. The hourly wage system most law firms function under is seen as somehow unchangeable although there's lots of evidence that that system doesn't serve the best interest of lawyers or the clients.
I don't know if it is possible to have it all. I left my big firm job and big city life. I saw the writing on the wall. There wasn't a single female partner in my law firm who hadn't sacrificed something (though they didn't seem to realize it) -- they were all either unmarried, divorced, childless, or bragged about the great relationships their children had with their nannies. I didn't want that for my son. I had major mommy-guilt when I didn't get home until my son was asleep.
Yet even though I took a lower paying, in-house, state government job, I am working just as hard as I ever was. So I still have the mommy guilt. I think that might be the problem -- the mommy guilt keeps us from working our way up. I was totally capable. I could have stuck around and worked my way up. I could have made partner if I had wanted it. But I didn't.
People have commented that those who choose not to have children deserve the bigger offices. But I don't think that's it at all -- because many men have those offices and still have children. Is it just that men are totally fine with spending time away from their families? I don't think that's it. Is it more "ok" for a man to spend time away from his family than a woman? Is it just that men don't want to be stay-at-home dads? Is it a weird caveman pride thing? Do dads have daddy guilt?
I'm the breadwinner in our family. It's not like I'm working for kicks. I actually have to work and I really do think I would make a horrible stay-at-home mom. I'm an awesome evening and weekend mom. But yet I still feel guilty. And that's probably why I'll never be general counsel. Or at least, I won't be until the kids are out of the house and the mommy guilt is gone.
You ask, "Is there no way to adjust our cultural (and corporate) expectations around ambition and success?" and the answer to that is No.
Corporate will tell you there is still a business to run and as long as the country grows and the more demands that needs to be filled, the more will be asked from the employee to fill those demands. We are a society who cries at the drop of the hat when we are inconvenienced, even by a little. So there is competition to gain that business of the dissatisfied client or customer. Example: Most prefer a CVS or Walgreens pharmacy because they are open weekends and have a drive up window and that makes it easier to get your meds filled while toting around small children. If CVS has one then Walgreens will build one meaning more business, more prescriptions, and more traffic. Who will take care of all the customers? If CVS is open 24 hours, now Walgreens will be too meaning that Pharmacist who used to work 9-6 will now have to a third shift to meet the demand and follow protocol of fair and unbiased scheduling. Eventually that Pharmacist will be exhausted from third shifts and weekends and missing family time but in order to keep their job they have to abide by the schedule to meet the demands of the consumer. They have bills to pay as well and the added stress of longer hours and time away from family doesn't help but in order to support the family, this is what has to be done much less how to consider moving up to the top. It is clear that you, the consumer have chosen convenience and voiced your opinion by maybe shopping somewhere else until the other retailer saw the lost revenue and upped their game.
If we the consumer cared, we wouldn't gripe about how difficult it is to bring our child in for a refill or having to get to the pharmacy before it closed in time for the employees to get home to family dinner. We would just figure it out.
The executive committee did not process missed family time in the decision. They processed the idea of increased revenue only.
Mary, I guess as with everything it's hard to generalize. Some companies adjust and adapt and some don't. I do believe our culture is changing. My grandmother was telling me the other day her father once commented he thought it was her mother's job to raise the girls and that he regretted stepping back as he say his own sons and grandsons take a more active role. Sons and grandsons that still work a lot and have successful businesses so I don't think it's a permanent situation. Culture and expectations shift and change even if it doesn't always feel that way.
I think if you compare your "All" now as to what you wanted your "All" to be while in college then there is a 99% chance you don't have it. So rather than live every day disappointed, live everyday with some healthy perspective.
As I grew, met the man I married, found my career and then started a family my "All" changed with every next step. If anything, what I wanted twenty years ago is kind of silly. What was I thinking?
My "All" evolved as my life did. I don't have the career I wanted forever ago but I have a good job that I like and gives me a decent pay with vacation, sick and health benefits. I work in an office where we all support each other with all of life's daily needs including kids, pets, spouses, family and career choices. My company outside my immediate office is a different story, there are some horrors with that but we'll save that for a later date.
My husband is in a position that affords him the majority of the flexibility when our son is sick but even when he is home with our son he feels a world of guilt for not being at work. Neither one of our employers make us feel that way (directly but you're reminded of all the agony others faced in your absence), I think as parents we do it to ourselves because you want to care for your child but know you have obligations to meet at the workplace who affords you to have what you have for your family. We alternate time off to care for our son but it's also a struggle with keeping deadlines, meetings and all the fun that comes with work. We both knew this when starting a family it would be hard and some things like work or travel ambitions would take a back seat for at least a little while. We still have to put in the occasional weekend or maybe a late night to where one of us won't get home until well after our son is in bed or I'm out the door ten minutes after he's out of bed in the morning but it makes me appreciate my time with my family that much more and we always make the most of our time together. He's a crazy happy, smart, well adjusted kid so I don't think he's missing out.
The whole phrase is kind of vague because everyone’s perception of "All" is different. Sure some more money or extra vacation would be handy but that would be handy for everyone. No one person can define it because not everyone is the same. We are a society who doesn't like to give up a whole lot and who has a gross sense of entitlement. We all feel we are owed something. I can work hard until my hands fall off but that doesn't mean I'll get a huge promotion. It means I take pride in my job and have a strong work ethic. My eight figure a year CEO doesn't care when my son is sick much less myself, knows who I am, what I do or how hard I work but I don't let that bother me. I can't.
My husband and I balance everything and respect each others obligations outside the family. There will always be demands with work, family or friends and it's a good daily lesson for all of us that some things you can't have right away or have at all but you just make the best with what you have right now. I'm grateful for my job, my on time mortgage payments, family vacations but most of all my happy, healthy family.
So, in Slaughter's eyes I don't have it "All" but in my eyes I think I'm pretty close.
Another great response on CNN.com on why men can't have it all either.
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/06/29/can-anyone-have-it-all-men-women?hpt=hp_t3