Anne-Marie Slaughter, author of the conversation-starting cover story in The Atlantic this summer titled "Why Women Still Can't Have it All," thinks that Yahoo’s decision to tap soon-to-be mother Marissa Mayer as CEO confirms the main thesis of her piece.
"I'm all for what she's achieved," Slaughter said. "I just don't think that applies to the majority of women."
In Mayer's case, Slaughter argues, "women who are superhuman, rich and in charge of their own time can do it,” referring to the demands of having both a family and a high-profile career. “I don’t think it makes sense to say to most women 'make CEO by 37 and then have kids.’"
Slaughter wants women to have the same range of career choices and tradeoffs as men.
"Having a family often means a woman really has to change how she pursues her career. She has to take time in ways that knock her off the leadership track so, in fact, men still have choices about having career and having a family that women don’t. They still don’t have the same quality of choices."
Watch David's entire conversation with Anne-Marie Slaughter above to hear more about her piece, including why it is so important to have a good partner in life to help manage both the at-home and professional responsibilities.
Leave a Comment:
I'm still not sure why everyone is so upset over her statements. There's no way for men or women to have it all when children are involved.
"The child psychologist who thought she had all the answers to parenting until she became one herself." www.themommypsychologist.com
I don't know why people say that men "have it all" when they aren't the primary caregivers for most children. Women continue (if they have children) to be the ones their children turn to, while men are out of the loop in the family. When will men want to "have it all?" They don't. Women have more family importance, men have more work importance. I'm more interested in women gaining power in the world, but I'm always annoyed when they act like men "have it all."
This is the most definitive article on this issue I have ever read, and I've read a lot. No, we can't have it all unless, as Ms. Slaughter says, we are endowed superwomen. The average woman simply doesn't have the flexibility and support system to create a clear path for achievement. What I like about this article, though, is the fact that real solutions for this are offered. Radical solutions, but certainly sensible when you look at it. Why shouldn't the majority of people work virtually, at least part of the time? Why shouldn't schools do the same thing, and align the children's and parent's working time? The new corporate structure would look more like Google than a straightjacket law firm, but it would create a more productive work environment, better families, better schools, a healthier environment, and a better society? Would it be easy to implement this? Absolutely not. Do I think it's a great idea and we should move on it as fast as we can? You bet.
Every elite athlete, leader, businessperson, public servant and musician has made a choice: which part of my life will I sacrifice so I can attain the level of success I believe I can reach. This choice, whether stated in public or not, was made and there goes the rest of the story for each of these elite members of our society.
Slaughter made this choice a few times and attained elite status in our nation's history and I, personally, applaud her. We need to respect her choices.
That said, her position that "women can't have it all" just comes short of her admitting that she made these choices with sound reasoning. It's very difficult to read. In fact, it almost gives the impression that she is in denial that she made the choices she did. The most painful part of this article for me was how she allows herself to express her guilt in terms of a slew of stereotypical societal norms and a bunch of ridiculous assumptions about men who make the same choice she herself made. Ugh.
Having discussed this topic with nearly 50, high-level executives over the past 10 years, I find her position incredibly lacking in many respects, but mostly that she ignores the male point-of-view. To me, her story goes like this: at some point, her husband and she made a number of choices. Based on a few dynamics, her husband and she made a few adjustments to those choices. And here she is, in the position to show the world that she and her husband truly have it all, but instead, finds herself questioning those choices that she made. So, to get back into psychological balance, she allows herself this short-sighted tirade of blaming the world for them so she doesn't have to face that facts of having made them and dealing with it.
This discussion needs to move on and reflect the choices of this century we live in. Catch up. Wake up. Today, more men and women keep active in the workforce while raising children and make choices so that their family can achieve what they believe is attainable. These are the families who will, like Slaughter's, have it all, and will have to deal with the consequences of said choices.
As we achieve our goals, which aspects of our lives will thrive and which will take a back seat. And while we thrive in certain areas, how will families thrive at the same time? Do we bring in family members? Nannies? Do couples take turns taking on the role of caregiver and then primary bread winner? Do we ask, as men and women in the workforce, for more companies to create environments where we can raise our families? Do we implement more flexible hours? After school activities? The list goes on and on, and is worth discussing. But this is not a woman's issue. Men and women face these choices, equally, even if not discussed publicly.
These are choices we make as couples, individuals, parents and professionals. Whether or not we actually process how we made those choices is an entirely different discussion and one that truly deserves a place at the negotiation table, whether it be in a home, a conference or board room.
Let's get these discussions out in the public realm, but let's, please, move on to discuss them as gender-equal. It's 2012. Let's move on.
Prof. Slaughter is correct: as women near the top, something has to give -- like she said, "something tugs at the heartstrings" of THE MOTHER / WOMAN, which leads her to take the decision to ensure that the fruit of her womb is nurtured and cared for, career be damned! There is no mystery in this ... it's everywhere around us
These same discussions & answers were available 40-50 years ago, when these conversations started to get media attention. Please wash, rinse, and repeat: men & women are different. There are plusses & minuses to each role. One is not advantageous over the other. The answer is to embrace what you want to do, and be comfortble with those choices. If you don't achieve something, you are responsible, and that's it....just level the playing field in your mind, becasue that is where everyone's obstacles reside.
Men have it all? Is this woman smoking crack? Let me see here, I get married, work most of the time and try to make a mortgage payment for my family. My wife gets caught having an affair, gets pregnant ( work allows her time off for this ), files for divorce and gets "IT ALL" plus child support ( in which she uses to further her education ), makes a false allegation to gain custody ( Courts usually give a woman custody either way ), Oh but wait, she has choices too. She can abort the child ( at no cost and a Choice only she can make ) OR collect the support ( a hefty price tag in which is non itemized ). Where in the hell does this woman come off by saying "Men have it all"? After the child is born, she could then move in the pick of 5 men she chooses to sleep with, add his income to the mix and eventually work her way through school to get that PHD which will ensure "Having it all".
Wow. Sorry dude that sucks. Goes back to taking responsibility for the choices we make (including the partners we choose). People can pretend they have it all or accept that everyone has a different idea of what "it all" is.....I have the gift of being able to choose to stay home with my kids and I am grateful that choice is financially available. However, staying home has not improved my chances for getting a paying job at some point. I used to be a PM for a software company so my skills were outdated 6 months after I left. Could have gone back to work but did not want a nannie to raise my kids - my choice discussed with husband. Fast forward several years and I really feel like I have no skills that are marketable. So I can elect to reeducate myself, volunteer to acquire new skills/network, etc.., Bottom line is I know I am blessed to have the choice to stay home I also know that it has been a sacrifice of my own marketability career wise. However, I would make the same choice again. I volunteer at my kids school - I know about 70% of the kids in their grades by name and I know what is going on at the school with the kids and the staff. I attend school board meetings, I am an advocate for my children in school and in life. They are still young and I know they will grow up so fast. I just want to be there for as much of it as I can be. And when they don't need me as much it will be up to me to figure out what's next. That's life - make choices and be accountable. So my advice is choose carefully grasshopper.
I have to agree with janedoe; we all have to understand that "having it all" is a different mix for each individual. It certainly should not be about women's needs vs men's needs. I have been fortunate enough to be able to run my own business, so I have the flexibility to be with my kids more & do some community volunteer work too. None of that would be possible though without my husband working hard fulltime at a demanding job & still making a point to be available for me & the kids. So I may have made some sacrifies in terms of a corporate career track, but he is also under increased pressure to keep up with his career to keep making money to support our life style. So it is about making choices you can live with & supporting your spouse in what you each give up to raise a family.
David Gregory asks "what can we do to tackle this problem?" Meet the Press has the power to do one very simple thing for women: have more on the show. Anne-Marie Slaughter is a great example: she is one of our country's foremost foreign policy experts yet I can't recall seeing her on MTP. There are plenty of female experts and analysts out there such as Anne-Marie yet MTP continues to be a discussion dominated by men.
Here, here.
Prof Slaughter did say that so long as you are not in charge of your own hours, as a woman, you can't have it all. She did mention the "tug" of the heartstrings as a mother in feeling that you are shortchanging your child in order to make it to the top of a demanding, high-profile profession, and in the process lose out on the important years you could be bonding with them . . . therefore something has to give. Many mothers in such positions opt to climb back down the ladder and focus on giving attention to their children.While men may opt to suspend their climb, it is not the norm for them.
To paraphrase Mr Clinton, "it all depends on your definition of having it all means". I am reminded of an international meeting of women from all over the world who were gathered to discuss problems faced by women - those from wealthy countries were concerned about gender pay issues and those from less wealthy countries were concerned about the availability of potable water. Your wealth or lack there of will determine the quality and quantity of choices available to women over issues of work and family.