June 22, 2012
Anne-Marie Slaughter: Why Women Still Can’t Have It All
[T]he 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”). ...
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.
Before my service in government, I’d spent my career in academia: as a law professor and then as the dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Both were demanding jobs, but I had the ability to set my own schedule most of the time. I could be with my kids when I needed to be, and still get the work done. I had to travel frequently, but I found I could make up for that with an extended period at home or a family vacation.
I knew that I was lucky in my career choice, but I had no idea how lucky until I spent two years in Washington within a rigid bureaucracy, even with bosses as understanding as Hillary Clinton and her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills. ... [T]he minute I found myself in a job that is typical for the vast majority of working women (and men), working long hours on someone else’s schedule, I could no longer be both the parent and the professional I wanted to be—at least not with a child experiencing a rocky adolescence. I realized what should have perhaps been obvious: having it all, at least for me, depended almost entirely on what type of job I had. The flip side is the harder truth: having it all was not possible in many types of jobs, including high government office—at least not for very long. ...
After the speech I gave in New York, I went to dinner with a group of 30-somethings. I sat across from two vibrant women, one of whom worked at the UN and the other at a big New York law firm. As nearly always happens in these situations, they soon began asking me about work-life balance. When I told them I was writing this article, the lawyer said, “I look for role models and can’t find any.” She said the women in her firm who had become partners and taken on management positions had made tremendous sacrifices, “many of which they don’t even seem to realize -- They take two years off when their kids are young but then work like crazy to get back on track professionally, which means that they see their kids when they are toddlers but not teenagers, or really barely at all.” Her friend nodded, mentioning the top professional women she knew, all of whom essentially relied on round-the-clock nannies. Both were very clear that they did not want that life, but could not figure out how to combine professional success and satisfaction with a real commitment to family. ...
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.
- ABA Journal, Ex-Law Prof Concludes Women Can’t Have It All, Hits ‘Time Macho’ Culture at Law Firms
- American Prospect, Why Does The Atlantic Hate Women?
- The Careerist, To Have and to Have Not
- The Economist, Spending More Time With Our Families
- Feminist Law Professors, If Anne-Marie Slaughter is a Dropout, We’re Chopped Liver
- NPR, The Impossible Juggling Act: Motherhood and Work
- New York Times (article), Elite Women Put a New Spin on an Old Debate
- New York Times (Motherlode Blog), Talking About Why Women Can’t Have It All
- New York Times (op-ed by Ross Douthat), Having It All
- Slate, Fine, Women Can't Have It All. Isn't That Called Compromise?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Anne-Marie Slaughter: Why Women Still Can’t Have It All:
Is there a presumption that most men "have it all?" Most do not.
Posted by: save_the_rustbelt | Jun 22, 2012 6:16:47 PM
how many male big law partners sacrificed their relationships with their spouses and children to make partner? the problem is women usually want a partner that is an equal professionally. if you have a household of two career driven individuals what relationship are you expecting to nurture with the children? sounds like she should have written an article about the changes society should make to create a more family-friendly work environment for both men and women. instead, as she wrote herself, this article is directed at a small segment of the population, and comes off as rather sour grapes.
Posted by: Daniel | Jun 25, 2012 8:46:43 AM
Ms. Slaughter says that having it all is not possible "the way America’s economy and society are currently structured." That is hardly a shock -- market economies involve choices and choices involve trade-offs. Perhaps Ms. Slaughter would restructure our economy and society to criminalize the decision to work harder than whatever benchmark she thinks best. Yes, the idea is ridiculous, but I fear that plenty of folks in certain circles would take it seriously.
Posted by: Mike Petrik | Jun 25, 2012 3:53:03 PM
One more whiny article: Women Get Little Help From Men in Workplace
From a commenter:
Well, men are:
1) 8x more likely to go to jail than women.
2) Less likey to obtain a college degree than a woman.
3) 13x more likely to die on the job than a woman.
Should women be doing more? Why not: should we be demonized by not catering to every one of your needs while women don't give a damn about most of men's plights? ...And don't get me started on the equal-pay scam.
Posted by: Woody | Jun 25, 2012 6:23:11 PM