In my first post, I
wrote that I was a young scientist that wanted to have it all. On Wednesday, Professor
Anne-Marie Slaughter wrote an amazing article for the Atlantic titled “Why
women still can’t have it all”. Should I take that as my final answer?
I’m still working my
way through the ideas and implications in the article – I suspect it will take
a couple readings – but I think that it’s got many interesting and valid
points. Prof. Slaughter writes from the perspective of a former high-level
director at the State Department, and what struck me was that for her a return
to academia represented a return to a more reasonable schedule. For me, the
academia schedule is the highest bar I want to have to deal with! The main
message I came away with from this article was that ‘having it all’ is nigh
impossible in the current culture of work and family. This is in contrast to
the message that women can have it all, perhaps just not at the same time. The
extreme amount of time Prof. Slaughter devoted to her job meant that her family
life suffered, even more so than when she was a professor. Obviously she is an
intelligent, driven, well-spoken woman (argh, don’t read the comments after the
article if you want to have a good day), and her inability to have a satisfying
work and family life means, to me, that something’s wrong with what we expect
women to give up in order to succeed.
Another idea in the
article I responded strongly to: the idea that if you’re working late or long
hours, you must be more committed. I’ve not doubt that late and odd hours are
often the only time working mothers have to attend to work matters when they’re
home. I think of graduate students with children (it takes a much stronger
person than I do make that work) who spent nights in the lab to insure they’d
be around during the day, or who juggled babysitters to make sure they could
teaching for hours in the afternoon*. I
feel lucky that my graduate department and current post-doc institution didn’t
demand long hours in the lab or imply that all-nighters were the sign of true
dedication. For me, time to unwind and exercise mean I’m more productive during
the hours I work. And if/when I’m a parent, I don’t want to feel that if I’m
not at work at all times, I’m a bad scientist.
Why did I decide to
write this blog? It’s not meant for navel gazing, it’s meant for me to air my
concerns and worries about what being a successful scientist means for my
personal life. And this article resonated with me in part because I worry that ‘having
it all’ really means ‘having half of all of it’. As you probably guessed, this
article has spawned a large debate about how women can be successful. The New
York Times wrote a summary article (one response to that article by blogger Dr. Isis here) and included a very thoughtful conversation with
the author. I look forward to reading more, because just having the debate
means we’re thinking about these issues.
*One idea for
changing academia for the better – consult professors and teaching assistants with
children about their worktime preferences before scheduling classes or
assigning lab sections.
Literature Cited
Slaughter, A.-M.
(2012). Why women still can't have it all. The Atlantic. July/August.
P.S. Lori Gottlieb posted a reply on the Atlantic's site here. She argues that the fact that Prof. Slaughter wants it all is not a feminist issue, but a life-time-management issue, and that in short there's not enough time in the day to have it all. And she compares Prof. Slaughter to a kindergartener.
if Anne-Marie Slaughter was hoping to start a conversation, she did it! Two articles in the NYTimes opinion section July 1: one a direct response "To have (it all) and have not" by Susan Chira, and, indirectly, "The Busy Trap" by Tim Kreider. the second spoke to me as I see how young families succumb to the pressure to sign their kids up for so much stuff, and then become slaves to those activities (just say no to a 6am Sunday soccer practice). A little off the subject- but the point being that parenting is a balancing act in and of itself, full of decisions. And with small children you are never really in charge of the schedule.
ReplyDeleteAs a musician, I'm still painfully aware of the number of musicians in pop, jazz, rock, etc. that are women (even fewer if we're talking instrumentalist instead of vocalist), and working in a church I'm still aware of the "stained glass ceiling" for women.
Sadly- the same issues as for women scientists in one sense.
I do know that I was a better mom by having a career as well as a mom- that I was happier with a balance and with being able to do a job that I (mostly) enjoyed and received satisfaction from.
I so appreciate your reflections and your links to other's thoughts.
Thanks for your comment!
ReplyDeleteFor those interested, here are links for those articles. Chira's:
www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/sunday-review/working-mothers-at-the-top.html
Kreider:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/the-busy-trap/
And here's yet another response, this one from the Atlantic's site:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/we-need-to-tell-girls-they-can-have-it-all-even-if-they-cant/259165/#
by Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, which I really like. There are lots of 'quotable' lines that rang true, including "As my aunt likes to say, women still operate from a position of scarcity rather than a position of abundance."
Prof. Slaughter mentioned Sheryl Sandberg as someone advocating that women can have it. Here's her Stanford commencement address that Slaughter references:
http://dotsub.com/view/5d25b1fc-f846-4060-bb06-faef90283add/viewTranscript/eng
Apologies - it's from Sandberg's TED talk.
Delete