Post by cookiemdough on Jun 22, 2012 8:10:41 GMT -5
There are a couple of articles in various newspapers this morning regarding this piece in the Atlantic by Ann-Marie Slaughter the former director of planning at the State Department. Given the level of success she has attained, I guess there was shock that she would write a piece about women NOT having it all. The basic gist is that even when you have a husband that is an equal partner without some fundamental changes in the workplace, schedules, matching of school and work schedules, etc. that women still won't be able to have it all. Below is the first page of the Atlantic piece. It is really long so here is the link to see the entire article.
It’s time to stop fooling ourselves, says a woman who left a position of power: the women who have managed to be both mothers and top professionals are superhuman, rich, or self-employed. If we truly believe in equal opportunity for all women, here’s what has to change.
Eighteen months into my job as the first woman director of policy planning at the State Department, a foreign-policy dream job that traces its origins back to George Kennan, I found myself in New York, at the United Nations’ annual assemblage of every foreign minister and head of state in the world. On a Wednesday evening, President and Mrs. Obama hosted a glamorous reception at the American Museum of Natural History. I sipped champagne, greeted foreign dignitaries, and mingled. But I could not stop thinking about my 14-year-old son, who had started eighth grade three weeks earlier and was already resuming what had become his pattern of skipping homework, disrupting classes, failing math, and tuning out any adult who tried to reach him. Over the summer, we had barely spoken to each other—or, more accurately, he had barely spoken to me. And the previous spring I had received several urgent phone calls—invariably on the day of an important meeting—that required me to take the first train from Washington, D.C., where I worked, back to Princeton, New Jersey, where he lived. My husband, who has always done everything possible to support my career, took care of him and his 12-year-old brother during the week; outside of those midweek emergencies, I came home only on weekends.
As the evening wore on, I ran into a colleague who held a senior position in the White House. She has two sons exactly my sons’ ages, but she had chosen to move them from California to D.C. when she got her job, which meant her husband commuted back to California regularly. I told her how difficult I was finding it to be away from my son when he clearly needed me. Then I said, “When this is over, I’m going to write an op-ed titled ‘Women Can’t Have It All.’”
She was horrified. “You can’t write that,” she said. “You, of all people.” What she meant was that such a statement, coming from a high-profile career woman—a role model—would be a terrible signal to younger generations of women. By the end of the evening, she had talked me out of it, but for the remainder of my stint in Washington, I was increasingly aware that the feminist beliefs on which I had built my entire career were shifting under my feet. I had always assumed that if I could get a foreign-policy job in the State Department or the White House while my party was in power, I would stay the course as long as I had the opportunity to do work I loved. But in January 2011, when my two-year public-service leave from Princeton University was up, I hurried home as fast as I could. A rude epiphany hit me soon after I got there. When people asked why I had left government, I explained that I’d come home not only because of Princeton’s rules (after two years of leave, you lose your tenure), but also because of my desire to be with my family and my conclusion that juggling high-level government work with the needs of two teenage boys was not possible. I have not exactly left the ranks of full-time career women: I teach a full course load; write regular print and online columns on foreign policy; give 40 to 50 speeches a year; appear regularly on TV and radio; and am working on a new academic book. But I routinely got reactions from other women my age or older that ranged from disappointed (“It’s such a pity that you had to leave Washington”) to condescending (“I wouldn’t generalize from your experience. I’ve never had to compromise, and my kids turned out great”).
The first set of reactions, with the underlying assumption that my choice was somehow sad or unfortunate, was irksome enough. But it was the second set of reactions—those implying that my parenting and/or my commitment to my profession were somehow substandard—that triggered a blind fury. Suddenly, finally, the penny dropped. All my life, I’d been on the other side of this exchange. I’d been the woman smiling the faintly superior smile while another woman told me she had decided to take some time out or pursue a less competitive career track so that she could spend more time with her family. I’d been the woman congratulating herself on her unswerving commitment to the feminist cause, chatting smugly with her dwindling number of college or law-school friends who had reached and maintained their place on the highest rungs of their profession. I’d been the one telling young women at my lectures that you can have it all and do it all, regardless of what field you are in. Which means I’d been part, albeit unwittingly, of making millions of women feel that they are to blame if they cannot manage to rise up the ladder as fast as men and also have a family and an active home life (and be thin and beautiful to boot).
Last spring, I flew to Oxford to give a public lecture. At the request of a young Rhodes Scholar I know, I’d agreed to talk to the Rhodes community about “work-family balance.” I ended up speaking to a group of about 40 men and women in their mid-20s. What poured out of me was a set of very frank reflections on how unexpectedly hard it was to do the kind of job I wanted to do as a high government official and be the kind of parent I wanted to be, at a demanding time for my children (even though my husband, an academic, was willing to take on the lion’s share of parenting for the two years I was in Washington). I concluded by saying that my time in office had convinced me that further government service would be very unlikely while my sons were still at home. The audience was rapt, and asked many thoughtful questions. One of the first was from a young woman who began by thanking me for “not giving just one more fatuous ‘You can have it all’ talk.” Just about all of the women in that room planned to combine careers and family in some way. But almost all assumed and accepted that they would have to make compromises that the men in their lives were far less likely to have to make.
The striking gap between the responses I heard from those young women (and others like them) and the responses I heard from my peers and associates prompted me to write this article. Women of my generation have clung to the feminist credo we were raised with, even as our ranks have been steadily thinned by unresolvable tensions between family and career, because we are determined not to drop the flag for the next generation. But when many members of the younger generation have stopped listening, on the grounds that glibly repeating “you can have it all” is simply airbrushing reality, it is time to talk.
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. My experiences over the past three years have forced me to confront a number of uncomfortable facts that need to be widely acknowledged—and quickly changed.
What does that even mean "have it all"? No you can't dedicate your life to both your children and your career. That's like saying "why can't I be a successful doctor AND a successful lawyer at the same time?"
I feel like this is about 10 years off trend. I have been reading the "women can't have it all" stuff since the early 2000's... (oughts?)
Based on reading other articles about this particular article, I think it is more about the author who seemingly DID have it all, successful demanding career, husband that was an equal partner, kids, etc. and still felt that women have certain things against them that makes it difficult for this to be the reality, even for someone that is perceived to already have achieved this goal of having everything.
Post by charminglife on Jun 22, 2012 8:40:04 GMT -5
Little Moxie - I really agree with what you're saying about change not coming unless there's a complete overhaul in american culture. I also think that when we frame issues like this of work/life balance as a women's issue, we're already fighting a losing battle. I thought Slaughter's writing spoke to challenges that should be faced by all parents, but are always addressed around working motherhood.
It's probably the pessimist in me, but I feel like the basic facts won't change for the vast majority of women. There is no way to make it so that we can "have it all" to the same extent as men without basically overhauling American culture. Which won't happen. So long as we think working hard is the way to success, there will be a face time culture, and a bragging about how much you worked in any particular week.
1. From the moment of pregnancy, you're out of work for doctor visits more, and that type of thing. Even men who try to make it to all of them can opt out should something else "important" come up. Women just don't have that option.
2. Maternal leave. Even some superwomen who won't miss a day of work are probably lucky that they didn't have any complications (like a C-section) and/or that they have easier desk jobs that allow them to go to work and just sit there and type, even if in pain.
3. The maternal instinct she refers to, that there really isn't a choice between kids and work for women... there's no getting rid of that. And there's no denying that women generally tend to feel that stronger than men. It's a biological imperative for men to go around spreading their seed and while good men nowadays don't actually do that, I do think that the biological instinct is still there such that they are able to "leave" their kids easier, even if just for work. Plus, of course, society has made that the expectation for them, so they've been socialized into that and most probably didn't consider staying home and so they don't feel bad for not "choosing" their kids.
I saw so much of this at the firm, the only younger female partners did not have kids. Yet all the male partners did. I feel like to get ahead in many industries (I realize law is particularly bad and atypical, but I still think some of it is applicable elsewhere), a woman has to act like a man as much as possible. Which is generally possible, outside of actually being pregnant. But so long as the standard is to be like men, obviously women are not going to do as well as actual men.
Perhaps it's just more accurate to say that you can have it all, you just can't enjoy it all.
(sorry this is so long and rambly; it's just something that always bothered me and I think about more now)
I agree with all of this and, for me, especially 3.
I think that in certain high powered positions 1 may not be such a big deal - if you are a big wig enough in business I think you can usually make your schedule work, and you are working all sorts of hours outside of 9-5 anyhow.
And #2, again if you are far enough up the chain and in many business environments you will probably have a live-in from the get go and will work remote. And both of those are short term issues. But I think #3 is where the catch really is. I think that for women in this sort of career path, they will anticipate 1 and 2 and plan accordingly but 3 might just catch them off guard. And it isnt something that will go away after 6 weeks or something... as the author illustrates. And I think it can be hard to plan or schedule away your maternal instinct to go home when your kids are struggling, even though that is at odds with your career.
Post by cookiemdough on Jun 22, 2012 8:52:20 GMT -5
This excerpt made me think of some of the thoughts Habs has put forth in these discussions:
I am well aware that the majority of American women face problems far greater than any discussed in this article. I am writing for my demographic—highly educated, well-off women who are privileged enough to have choices in the first place. We may not have choices about whether to do paid work, as dual incomes have become indispensable. But we have choices about the type and tempo of the work we do. We are the women who could be leading, and who should be equally represented in the leadership ranks.
Millions of other working women face much more difficult life circumstances. Some are single mothers; many struggle to find any job; others support husbands who cannot find jobs. Many cope with a work life in which good day care is either unavailable or very expensive; school schedules do not match work schedules; and schools themselves are failing to educate their children. Many of these women are worrying not about having it all, but rather about holding on to what they do have. And although women as a group have made substantial gains in wages, educational attainment, and prestige over the past three decades, the economists Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson have shown that women are less happy today than their predecessors were in 1972, both in absolute terms and relative to men.
The best hope for improving the lot of all women, and for closing what Wolfers and Stevenson call a “new gender gap”—measured by well-being rather than wages—is to close the leadership gap: to elect a woman president and 50 women senators; to ensure that women are equally represented in the ranks of corporate executives and judicial leaders. Only when women wield power in sufficient numbers will we create a society that genuinely works for all women. That will be a society that works for everyone.
Little Moxie - I really agree with what you're saying about change not coming unless there's a complete overhaul in american culture. I also think that when we frame issues like this of work/life balance as a women's issue, we're already fighting a losing battle. I thought Slaughter's writing spoke to challenges that should be faced by all parents, but are always addressed around working motherhood.
I totally agree with this. I wish the work-family balance problems could be framed as parent issues, not women's issues.
It's probably the pessimist in me, but I feel like the basic facts won't change for the vast majority of women. There is no way to make it so that we can "have it all" to the same extent as men without basically overhauling American culture. Which won't happen. So long as we think working hard is the way to success, there will be a face time culture, and a bragging about how much you worked in any particular week.
OK, but in this specific example, the woman got to go off and do her high-powered job while the man did the majority of the child-rearing. I think that's fabulous that they worked together to make decisions to support both partners in the marriage. So how is she not "having it all" to the same extent as her husband (or I would argue even more for the time period she is describing)?
I am not a parent so many of you will probably dismiss my opinions outright, but there are certainly cases where the dad is more of a parent than the mom. So, that maternal instinct is not a 100% fool-proof way to decide that this is more of a woman's problem than a man's.
It's probably the pessimist in me, but I feel like the basic facts won't change for the vast majority of women. There is no way to make it so that we can "have it all" to the same extent as men without basically overhauling American culture. Which won't happen. So long as we think working hard is the way to success, there will be a face time culture, and a bragging about how much you worked in any particular week.
OK, but in this specific example, the woman got to go off and do her high-powered job while the man did the majority of the child-rearing. I think that's fabulous that they worked together to make decisions to support both partners in the marriage. So how is she not "having it all" to the same extent as her husband (or I would argue even more for the time period she is describing)?
I am not a parent so many of you will probably dismiss my opinions outright, but there are certainly cases where the dad is more of a parent than the mom. So, that maternal instinct is not a 100% fool-proof way to decide that this is more of a woman's problem than a man's.
from the article:Still, the proposition that women can have high-powered careers as long as their husbands or partners are willing to share the parenting load equally (or disproportionately) assumes that most women will feel as comfortable as men do about being away from their children, as long as their partner is home with them. In my experience, that is simply not the case.
Here I step onto treacherous ground, mined with stereotypes. From years of conversations and observations, however, I’ve come to believe that men and women respond quite differently when problems at home force them to recognize that their absence is hurting a child, or at least that their presence would likely help. I do not believe fathers love their children any less than mothers do, but men do seem more likely to choose their job at a cost to their family, while women seem more likely to choose their family at a cost to their job.
Many factors determine this choice, of course. Men are still socialized to believe that their primary family obligation is to be the breadwinner; women, to believe that their primary family obligation is to be the caregiver. But it may be more than that. When I described the choice between my children and my job to Senator Jeanne Shaheen, she said exactly what I felt: “There’s really no choice.” She wasn’t referring to social expectations, but to a maternal imperative felt so deeply that the “choice” is reflexive.
The real question I take away from all this...is it ok to not WANT it all?
I think there is a section of women who will guilt other women who don't strive to want it all because we think it negatively impacts the woman's movement to not even try. The comments by Cheryl Sandberg at the Barnard commencement address kind of addresses this. Then of course there is another sector who think women who strive to have it all aren't putting their family first. So basically someone is going to always think you are doing it wrong. Yay!
men don't "have it all" either. they're just expected to be OK with having less family time than women. their bar is set lower than ours.
THIS! No one has it all.
I think in 95% of marriages, 1 career gets sacrificed for the other, at least in the "moving up the ladder," kind of a way...and that's before you add kids to the mix. Once kids are added in, the sacrifices get larger for both spouses. What needs to change is the myth that anyone has it all.
I think we need to stop talking about "having it all" and start making it easier for people to balance what they do have. Our workplaces should have more family friendly policies for both men and women so that they don't have to choose 100% career or 100% family. For those who concentrate on their career, they should still be able to work remotely, take time for doctors appointments, etc. We need to concentrate more on quality of work rather than quantity. If you can get all of your work done in 6 hours and take 2 hours for your child's doctor appointment, what is the problem? How does this hurt the company or productivity? Similarly, for people who choose to concentrate on their family, we should help them keep their professional skills up to date so that they can reenter the workforce if need be, as well as not automatically discarding any applicant who has been a SAH parent for the last few years and instead maybe considering them based on their skills and abilities rather than whether they fit a prescribed mold of what an employee's resume *should* look like.
An observation, but I'm pretty sure DH is the only person on the leadership team at work (male or female) that has a working spouse. DH worked with some pretty driven/successful women with large broods (4+ kids) at his last job, but they all had SAHD husbands. I think the key for a woman to have a high power career really comes down to who she marries/partners with. I don't think it is really possible to have more than 1 kid and 2 high pressure/power careers. Someone's career always has to take the backseat.
I really respect the author's decision to make it known when she was out for family issues (doc appts, parent teacher conferences, etc) that in and of itself is a huge step.
My grad advisor was one of the old guard feminists. She had to work her tail off to be not only better than the men but so much better that people didn't notice she was a woman. She had 2 children and I didn't know their names until I had worked for her for more than 3 years because she referred to them so rarely; and when she did, she said "the kid" and didn't make a distinction between her son or daughter. When women in my lab would get married/pregnant/make any life decision she thought deviated from the fastest path to success she wrote them off in whole.
While I will admit she was extreme it has taken me a long time to be open about how happy I am to be a mom (and a working mom) and for me to mention DS at the office or say that I am taking off/staying home for something related to him. I do think that women in power being more up front about the day-to-day decisions they are making in order to be both a parent and a high powered exec would be awesome. I would love to have a role model who was transparent about where her working life and home life needed to blend.
I think the maternity leave issues and dr appts etc are a little different, though related. This woman, and others at this level and type of job, I really dont think that those are the main issues to 'having it all.' Like she said (cookie quoted later), those ARE real issues for many mothers - but for the super high powered professional women like she is, I dont think those are the main problem, and I dont think that is what she is talking about. It is about the absolute impossibility that would be giving 100% to a career and to a family. The time isnt there, and the energy either. She DID have it all by the definition of many, including the husband willing to take on the heavily family role... except she wasnt happy with that, so really, she didnt have it all after all. I do not think that this is a universal truth, but I do think that for many women the reality of being a mother and wanting to play a greater role in their family life can be the problem. In this case, all the hurdles we are talking about arent issues for her... but it still wasnt 'working.'
I think that the perception that 'having it all' is POSSIBLE and that women of a certain pay grade/education/position SHOULD want it is the problem.
And cookie - that exact thing has been said here in the past (well the old board at least, Im remember from years back). That women who dont work, who make the choice to stay home or take a less aggressive path are hurting all women and the progress that has been made.
I think we need to stop talking about "having it all" and start making it easier for people to balance what they do have. Our workplaces should have more family friendly policies for both men and women so that they don't have to choose 100% career or 100% family. For those who concentrate on their career, they should still be able to work remotely, take time for doctors appointments, etc. We need to concentrate more on quality of work rather than quantity. If you can get all of your work done in 6 hours and take 2 hours for your child's doctor appointment, what is the problem? How does this hurt the company or productivity? Similarly, for people who choose to concentrate on their family, we should help them keep their professional skills up to date so that they can reenter the workforce if need be, as well as not automatically discarding any applicant who has been a SAH parent for the last few years and instead maybe considering them based on their skills and abilities rather than whether they fit a prescribed mold of what an employee's resume *should* look like.
But there are a lot of jobs that can't function this way. My DH could never work from home...so much of what he does happens on site, and that can't change. I'd say that true for 80% of the people that work for him as well. My BFF's DH has a job that requires him to travel frequently, and to cover a lot of ground once he reaches a location. Phone calls and internet don't change that.
I think we need to stop talking about "having it all" and start making it easier for people to balance what they do have. Our workplaces should have more family friendly policies for both men and women so that they don't have to choose 100% career or 100% family. For those who concentrate on their career, they should still be able to work remotely, take time for doctors appointments, etc. We need to concentrate more on quality of work rather than quantity. If you can get all of your work done in 6 hours and take 2 hours for your child's doctor appointment, what is the problem? How does this hurt the company or productivity? Similarly, for people who choose to concentrate on their family, we should help them keep their professional skills up to date so that they can reenter the workforce if need be, as well as not automatically discarding any applicant who has been a SAH parent for the last few years and instead maybe considering them based on their skills and abilities rather than whether they fit a prescribed mold of what an employee's resume *should* look like.
But there are a lot of jobs that can't function this way. My DH could never work from home...so much of what he does happens on site, and that can't change. I'd say that true for 80% of the people that work for him as well. My BFF's DH has a job that requires him to travel frequently, and to cover a lot of ground once he reaches a location. Phone calls and internet don't change that.
Ditto. My husband is a pharmacist. He has to be there, in the store, in hte pharmacy the whole time. No working remote, or zipping out for an appt. He is lucky to break away from the counter to use the restroom. Luckily, my job has more flexibility for emergencies, and his job has retail hours so we can get all that stuff covered.
I think we need to stop talking about "having it all" and start making it easier for people to balance what they do have. Our workplaces should have more family friendly policies for both men and women so that they don't have to choose 100% career or 100% family. For those who concentrate on their career, they should still be able to work remotely, take time for doctors appointments, etc. We need to concentrate more on quality of work rather than quantity. If you can get all of your work done in 6 hours and take 2 hours for your child's doctor appointment, what is the problem? How does this hurt the company or productivity? Similarly, for people who choose to concentrate on their family, we should help them keep their professional skills up to date so that they can reenter the workforce if need be, as well as not automatically discarding any applicant who has been a SAH parent for the last few years and instead maybe considering them based on their skills and abilities rather than whether they fit a prescribed mold of what an employee's resume *should* look like.
But there are a lot of jobs that can't function this way. My DH could never work from home...so much of what he does happens on site, and that can't change. I'd say that true for 80% of the people that work for him as well. My BFF's DH has a job that requires him to travel frequently, and to cover a lot of ground once he reaches a location. Phone calls and internet don't change that.
Face time still matters a lot for a lot of positions. DH could probably work from home for a day or two here or there, but definitely not every day.
I also think at the lower end of the career scale there really isn't any flexibility. If you work in a call center you basically are tethered to your seat all day long and can't even get personal calls or emails.
I think we need to stop talking about "having it all" and start making it easier for people to balance what they do have. Our workplaces should have more family friendly policies for both men and women so that they don't have to choose 100% career or 100% family. For those who concentrate on their career, they should still be able to work remotely, take time for doctors appointments, etc. We need to concentrate more on quality of work rather than quantity. If you can get all of your work done in 6 hours and take 2 hours for your child's doctor appointment, what is the problem? How does this hurt the company or productivity? Similarly, for people who choose to concentrate on their family, we should help them keep their professional skills up to date so that they can reenter the workforce if need be, as well as not automatically discarding any applicant who has been a SAH parent for the last few years and instead maybe considering them based on their skills and abilities rather than whether they fit a prescribed mold of what an employee's resume *should* look like.
But there are a lot of jobs that can't function this way. My DH could never work from home...so much of what he does happens on site, and that can't change. I'd say that true for 80% of the people that work for him as well. My BFF's DH has a job that requires him to travel frequently, and to cover a lot of ground once he reaches a location. Phone calls and internet don't change that.
Sure, there are some jobs that you'll never be able to do this for. You can't ever be a work-from-home grocery store clerk, clearly. But there are also an awful lot of them that you can, if employers would change their thinking about quality vs. quantity.
Perhaps it's just more accurate to say that you can have it all, you just can't enjoy it all.
After reading all of this and thinking about how I just gave up part of my job (and took a 10% pay cut) to spend more time with my kids, I think this is the truest statement of all. I was doing it all in my field but I sure as hell wasn't enjoying it all - work or home - fully. Something had to give and I really didn't think giving up being a mom was the best option.
But there are a lot of jobs that can't function this way. My DH could never work from home...so much of what he does happens on site, and that can't change. I'd say that true for 80% of the people that work for him as well. My BFF's DH has a job that requires him to travel frequently, and to cover a lot of ground once he reaches a location. Phone calls and internet don't change that.
Sure, there are some jobs that you'll never be able to do this for. You can't ever be a work-from-home grocery store clerk, clearly. But there are also an awful lot of them that you can, if employers would change their thinking about quality vs. quantity.
I fully agree with ttt. My DH is on the road quite a bit and expected to do both his travel work and day-to-day work from the road. If that is the case, why in the heck does his office have a "no working from home policy". It is completely ridiculous and hypocritical to expect him to be 100% functional from the road but heaven forbid he stays at home to meet the washer repair man.
men don't "have it all" either. they're just expected to be OK with having less family time than women. their bar is set lower than ours.
This is a really really excellent point. I do not believe for a second that a man (whether he's a father or not) who's working 80+ hours a week, even if he's raking in the dough, "has it all" either. Something always has to give - family, work, leisure time, etc. For many reasons, there is just less "pressure" for a man to feel guilty about that.
men don't "have it all" either. they're just expected to be OK with having less family time than women. their bar is set lower than ours.
This is a really really excellent point. I do not believe for a second that a man (whether he's a father or not) who's working 80+ hours a week, even if he's raking in the dough, "has it all" either. Something always has to give - family, work, leisure time, etc. For many reasons, there is just less "pressure" for a man to feel guilty about that.
I agree, but then again, no one feels guilty unless they allow themselves to feel guilty.
I would also argue that when we think we have it all, we suddenly realize that we really didn't. I think this whole "have it all" business is a bunch of hogwash.
I think we need to stop talking about "having it all" and start making it easier for people to balance what they do have. Our workplaces should have more family friendly policies for both men and women so that they don't have to choose 100% career or 100% family. For those who concentrate on their career, they should still be able to work remotely, take time for doctors appointments, etc. We need to concentrate more on quality of work rather than quantity. If you can get all of your work done in 6 hours and take 2 hours for your child's doctor appointment, what is the problem? How does this hurt the company or productivity? Similarly, for people who choose to concentrate on their family, we should help them keep their professional skills up to date so that they can reenter the workforce if need be, as well as not automatically discarding any applicant who has been a SAH parent for the last few years and instead maybe considering them based on their skills and abilities rather than whether they fit a prescribed mold of what an employee's resume *should* look like.
Hallelujah and holy shit!
(That means yes, I agree) Fuck this live to work mentality. It's not helping production or GDP.
If women would stop navel gazing about how we don't "have it all" (as if that concept even exists, for ANYONE, ffs) maybe we could actually spend that energy making society better for women (and men too if we're feeling generous).
But all this hand wringing about not having it all makes me want to bang my head on my desk.
If women would stop navel gazing about how we don't "have it all" (as if that concept even exists, for ANYONE, ffs) maybe we could actually spend that energy making society better for women (and men too if we're feeling generous).
But all this hand wringing about not having it all makes me want to bang my head on my desk.
If women would stop navel gazing about how we don't "have it all" (as if that concept even exists, for ANYONE, ffs) maybe we could actually spend that energy making society better for women (and men too if we're feeling generous).
But all this hand wringing about not having it all makes me want to bang my head on my desk.
Seriously.
Did y'all actually read the article? Because I thought that she addressed what you're saying pretty well.
If women would stop navel gazing about how we don't "have it all" (as if that concept even exists, for ANYONE, ffs) maybe we could actually spend that energy making society better for women (and men too if we're feeling generous).
But all this hand wringing about not having it all makes me want to bang my head on my desk.
Actually I think this is kind of what the article is eluding to. there is no such thing and we are only doing ourselves a disservice to continue thinking that if only x, y, or z were in place we could get there.