| | I'm sure that some of you have already heard about or read this article - "Why Women Still Can't Have it All", written by Anne-Marie Slaughter and published in the July/August edition of The Atlantic - but I thought I'd share it for those who haven't, as it provides some thought-provoking commentary on issues that both women and men face in striving to attain fulfillment at work and at home.
Slaughter specifically highlights the legal industry, built on the foundation of the billable hour, and discusses the unique challenges that this model presents for a law firm associate seeking to establish a work/life balance with which he or she is satisfied. | | | Thank you all for your responses – I had read Joyner's article, but hadn't seen Gottlieb's, so thanks for posting, Sherie. Ultimately, as I wrote above, I found the article worthwhile in provoking thought on work/life balance issues with which I grappled while working as a financial analyst before law school, and which I think about now as I ponder my ideal legal career trajectory. I think that one of my main takeaways from this class was that for me it isn’t about having it all, at least in the terms Slaughter describes, where ambition equates to being a leader in one’s chosen profession. I’d rather have enough – enough to be happy and fulfilled, personally and professionally – and have the liberty to choose when and how to make tradeoffs from which I’ll derive that fulfillment. | |
<
< | Sherie, while I personally agree with your conception of "having it all" (happiness and value-add to society), I don't think that Slaughter's conception (high powered career + family) is any less valid, as I’d imagine that some women (and men) work in their high-powered jobs not for salary or prestige, but because they find the work meaningful and fulfilling. I’d venture to say that “having it all” could mean something different to everyone, as a personal notion of what it means to "have it all" is, by definition, a highly individualized matter based on individual priorities and preferences. Slaughter acknowledges that she’s specifically addressing a narrow population, comprised of women at the upper echelon of their professions who seek to balance their success at work with a desire to also raise children and be present to parent them. I don’t think she was shocked that she missed her kids, and I actually thought she spoke with considerable candor in acknowledging that perhaps her gender played a role in how she experienced the impact of being away from her kids. Actually, my main qualm here was that Slaughter presumptively imposes her construct of what it means to “have it all” on other high-powered professional women (Condoleezza Rice, as an example) solely because they are similarly situated to her professionally and therefore members of her target audience. | >
> | Sherie, while I personally agree with your conception of "having it all" (happiness and value-add to society), I don't think that Slaughter's conception (high powered career + family) is any less valid, as I’d imagine that some women (and men) work in their high-powered jobs not for salary or prestige, but because they find the work meaningful and fulfilling. I’d venture to say that “having it all” could mean something different to everyone, as a personal notion of what it means to "have it all" is, by definition, a highly individualized matter based on individual priorities and preferences. Slaughter acknowledges that she’s specifically addressing a narrow population, comprised of women at the upper echelon of their professions who seek to balance their success at work with a desire to also have children and be present to parent them. I don’t think she was shocked that she missed her kids, and I actually thought she spoke with considerable candor in acknowledging that perhaps her gender played a role in how she experienced the impact of being away from her kids. Actually, my main qualm here was that Slaughter presumptively imposes her construct of what it means to “have it all” on other high-powered professional women (Condoleezza Rice, as an example) solely because they are similarly situated to her professionally and therefore members of her target audience. | | | Irrespective of whether Slaughter’s framework for “having it all” is one with which I identify (because I don’t, for the most part) what I thought was most interesting about Slaughter’s piece is the reflection it inspired for me on whether anyone – male or female – can really “have it all” (in the terms Slaughter puts forth) in our society. | | | That being said, I appreciated your recognition of the value of the article for what it is (and not what it is missing) and its uplifting to hear that a company as large and pervasive as UBS can reform.
-- SherieGertler - 28 Jun 2012 | |
>
> | Sherie, thank you for your response - I totally agree with you on everything you said above. I think that you're right in that Slaughter's construct of "professional success" is inherently limiting, and that her piece would have had far wider reach and likely resonated with more readers had she broadened the scope of her argument to encompass other core dimensions of success.
I also agree that framing the conflict as one in which a working parent, man or woman, cannot physically occupy two places at once really makes it seem impossible to "have it all" (in the terms Slaughter puts forth). And like you, I assume that a working parent who seeks to be the best parent they can while simultaneously striving to attain the utmost professional success is faced with two obligations that demand more than half of his or her time. Consequently, such an individual, woman or man, will be forced to make tradeoffs, tipping the balance between professional achievement and parenthood (or more broadly, work and life), moving along the continuum accordingly.
I think you're right though, this situation doesn't have to be 'despairing' (although I suppose that Slaughter might disagree). To the contrary, to me it simply means that a person facing this scenario should consider the relative importance of his or her competing obligations, and choose a point on the continuum at which he or she feels most satisfied and fulfilled personally and professionally. That being said, I think that working parents, mothers and fathers, would be able find such a point with greater ease if our work culture transformed in a manner such that more value was placed on time spent with family or on personal endeavors (whether this is possible, I don't know).
Ultimately, I think the point on the continuum that I am seeking is one at which I may spend enough time with those I love, or doing things I love, to make me happy, while also having the opportunity to strive for my conception of professional success (enough to be materially comfortable and engaged in meaningful work about which I'm passionate). If I'm able to make the personal and professional choices to get me to that point, by definition I'll have made the tradeoffs which are, as you point out, Sherie, simple facts of life. Overall, reflecting on this discussion has really left me with an acute awareness of how fortunate I am, and how rare it is, to have - or even to contemplate having - a choice about where on the work/life continuum I'd like to land.
-- CourtneyDoak - 28 Jun 2012 |
|