Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
Anne-Marie Slaughter recently wrote a piece in The Atlantic that stirred up a fair amount of discussion about women and “having it all”. Slaughter is a liberal feminist, and I disagreed with many points in the article, but it was interesting nonetheless for its candid acknowledgement of many hard truths. She admits, for example, that she herself was once the sort of person who looked smugly down on former peers or colleagues who left the professional fast track for the sakes of their families. She admits that she and many of her fellow feminist Boomers have felt “disappointment” in a younger female generation that seems unwilling to “make the sacrifices” for their careers. Most importantly, she seems to admit that the barriers that keep women from achieving at the highest levels aren’t all social constructs. Some of them are rooted in more fundamental realities about the differences between mothers and fathers, and in what families need.
Having admitted so much, Slaughter still keeps her eyes on the prize. We need to make society more accommodating so that womenwillbe able to have it all. We need more female politicians and CEOs. We need more female partners at high-powered law firms. We need these women to ascend to positions of power, from which they will be able to transform society and make it more family friendly. We need women to build a world that works for women.
There may be some people here at Ricochet who would strike down nearly all of Slaughter's concrete suggestions. I actually agree with her on several points. I think Americans should be intensely concerned about building a family-friendly society. If workplaces could be made more family-friendly without sacrificing productivity (and quite a number of people seem to think that they could), this should certainly be done.
In a related vein, I agree with Slaughter that we as a society should have a lively concern about work-family balance, and particularly about the difficulties mothers face in this regard. In my mind, this isn’t an equality issue so much as a demographics issue. All the world over, rising levels of women’s education tend to correspond to falling birth rates. It’s not that hard to figure out why this would happen. When women have significant professional opportunities, combined with real earning potential, the price of childbearing starts to look very steep indeed. Raising a child, according to the USDA, is as expensive as it’s ever been. At the same time, children make it much harder for women to have serious careers. Some of this just comes down to unavoidable realities, but at the same time, it’s really not in society’s interests for women to feel that they must choose between a life of material comfort and prestige, and a life of diapers, dishes and relentless coupon-clipping. That’s a recipe for demographic disaster.
So, we want women to be good mothers, without having to forego all interesting professional opportunities. But how important is it to see them at the top? Slaughter is distraught about the paucity of female politicians, CEO’s and law firm partners.
It seems to me that her essay explains quite well how reasonable it is for women to avoid these highly demanding careers. There are exceptional cases, and that’s fine. Not every woman needs to become a mother, though ideally most of us will. But one obvious way to ease the tension between family and work is by encouraging women to pursue flexible jobs, and ones that can be left for a period, and resumed again later in life. Those aren’t the sorts of jobs that will easily be found in high-power law firms or executive boardrooms. Can’t we just accept that that’s always going to be the case? Is it such a bad thing if women make their contributions elsewhere?
Myself, I think it is desirable that women should succeed in some prestigious and influential professions. It puts a check on male entitlement (which I don’t see as a big problem in our society, but it is and historically has been for some) and enables women to make their voices heard. Sometimes they do have insights or suggestions that men would be less likely to make. Still, it should be possible to get the benefit of a female perspective without achieving a perfect gender equilibrium in every influential profession.
In Slaughter’s happy vision, powerful women should take the reins and create a family-friendly world for everyone. It’s sort of a nice thought, but I just don’t think it would happen. Women are themselves deeply conflicted about these issues, and the ones who do make it “to the top” are often not that interested in using their prestige and influence to address “mommy issues”; sometimes they even seem to have a quasi-vindictive desire to ensure that, if they had to miss the t-ball games and band concerts, other women should have to pay the same price.
I think my generation of women is far more ready than our elders were to discuss reasonable compromises. Raising children is a major life project, and we can’t realistically expect to do it well without making some professional sacrifices. Taking one’s name out of the running for Secretary of State might be the sort of thing that can be sacrificed.
On the other hand, given the high social value of this particular project, it’s in society’s interests to keep the “price” as low as it reasonably can be. Mothers often feel buffeted, on the one hand by the judgments of people (somewhat like the younger Slaughter, apparently) who think they “sold out” by having a family in the first place, and on the other by people who seem to think that the very desire for a career proves them to be utterly in the thrall of feminist ideologies. (This last never made much sense to me. Women want to work for substantially the same reasons men do. Why do we need to read more into it than that?) Working women feel constantly torn between an excess of obligations, while women who leave work for extended periods, regardless of their qualifications or experience, may well find themselves filling out an application at Dairy Queen when they’re ready to return to work. Does it need to be that way, given that a 45-year-old woman (say) may well have a solid 25 employable years still ahead of her?
I think it’s time for some renegotiation. But it might help to start by getting over the obsession with strict equality. Who cares if the partners of Jones Day are mostly male? Why does it matter if few women are running Fortune 500 companies? Let’s put that silliness aside, and get started on the conversations we really need to be having.
- Comment (85)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (9)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
I suppose I'm leaning towards Missouri - show me.
We (our society) has been harangued and nagged for as long as I can remember (and I'm closing in on 53) about the inequality between the sexes and the races. With regards to race, the nation went so far as to elect a black (okay, well, a partially black) man to the White House. And what has that accomplished in terms of race relations? Um, exactly what my wife warned about this time 4 years ago - "He (meaning Obama) will set race relations back 50 years or more".
I'm inclined to think that there is very little difference between genders in the working society of America that isn't demographically caused, as you describe it. Every "accomplishment" in gender "equality" is met with the same as those concerning race - an immediate scream for more concessions from men (or white people).
The woman ending up filling out applications at DQ? Does it really need to be that way? Well, what if it was a man who had been out of the work force for 25 years raising his kids? Maybe he'd end up bagging groceries at Safeway.
Dec '10
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
The dreaded 200 word limit. I'm honestly not a stereotypical chauvinist. As a man whose 2 children (22 year old son, 18 year old daughter) have hit adulthood, I tend to look on the experiences of raising them. The school systems have become ridiculously slanted to the advantage of the girls - class structure, activities, curriculum, everything revolves around the best way to teach the girls. The boys be damned.
Then it's time to go to college. How do you explain the 60-40 female to male ratio in colleges nationwide (my son's was 70-30)? A big part of it goes back to my previous point, but I can also tell you a brutal fact - if you are a white male going into college you have a far lower opportunity for scholarships than if you were female or a minority. Matters not one iota how much your family can afford.
I apologize for the rant Rachel, but I'm just more than a little tired of the argument always starting with "the deck is stacked against women". I believe it should start with making that as a question. You'll be hard pressed to convince me.
May '10
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
Rachel, I'm so glad someone brought up this topic. I read the Atlantic piece a couple of weeks ago, and I had similar feelings. I think what many women desire is flexibility. I stay at home with my kids, and it will be about 10+ years that I'll be out of the workforce when I return full time. Luckily, I do some freelance work that's worth my time, but I know lots of college-educated women working part-time for peanuts. Then there's the dreaded multilevel marketing schemes.
I think women with kids are seen as a liability to many business leaders. I don't know why companies can't hire women to work professional, well-paying jobs at flexible and/or reduced hours. For instance, in the federal sector there are few part time jobs. Why? The union demands a mandatory 40 hour work week. It's the union that stands in the way of a family-friendly workforce policy. But many fed employees take leave to attend to family matters, and then work overtime in the same pay period. So, they get paid twice. A flexible work policy would end up saving taxpayer money.
Apr '12
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
But there's no need to apologize, when I agree with so very much of what you say.
Women get lots of advantages, but not the right ones. In my own profession (well, by training anyhow), I don't think there's any question that it's easier (often considerably easier) to get hired as a woman if you don't get pulled off course by motherhood. This makes sense, perhaps, to deranged feminists who think that the particular burdens of womanhood lie in irrational social prejudice. If, like me, you think they're largely rooted in nature (and the naturally burdensome task of bearing and rearing children), this scenario could hardly be worse, especially from the demographic perspective as mentioned above. If you don't start a family, wonderful, undeserved opportunities will open before you. If youdo...Dairy Queen. Talk about incentives to stay single.
Older women can't prove their worth unless they get hired, and they largely get caught between men like you (who understandably resent women for their unfair advantages) and liberal feminists who resent them for abandoning their posts. I'm pulling a Booker T Washington here. Use the resource. Everyone will benefit.
Edited on July 7, 2012 at 1:16amApr '12
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
Sorry; my last comment was a response to The Great Adventure! But I hit my word limit so I can't edit it to say that. :)
Karen, I also love the idea of more part-time work. And you're completely right about the unions.
Jun '10
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
I've heard career women say--joking/not joking?--that what they really need is a wife.
Wives are needed, and appreciated (for the most part,) but nobody wants to be one full-time. That seems strange. Is it about status?
Jan '11
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
What does "having it all" really mean? Perhaps women have different definitions or realize that "having it all" occurs over a lifetime; not a moment in a lifetime.
Apr '12
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
That might be one thing. I was amazed (and taken by surprise) when I saw how differently people treated me when I got married and left my graduate institution (that is, physically relocated, though I continued dissertating and eventually finished) and moved to another state where my husband was teaching. I didn't see any reason why I shouldn't be just as respected in his department as in my own. After all, I was in a prestigious graduate program, much more highly ranked than their department! But it was like night and day. The fact that I was there *as a spouse* seemed to make all the difference. I was nobody. And that was before I even had kids!Practical realities are also important, however. Motherhood is not lucrative, and financial insecurity is that much more painful when you have small dependents to worry about. Being economically dependent as a capable adult is also intrinsically dissatisfying in many ways, even if one is materially very comfortable. Finally I will just add that insofar as "I need a wife" means "I want someone to clean my house and cook for me"... well, that life isn't necessarily the most fulfilling.
Edited on July 7, 2012 at 3:16amJun '10
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
I have never seen this addressed in a discussion of equality but my question is why do we revere a top executive so much? Do they provide jobs? Yes. Do they have relationships with their children? Maybe.
Our drive to be the best, have the best, love the best is not that conducive to family life. I think we have all traded the shiny bright things for the important things.
Steve Jobs biography is one example (she types out on her Mac). He wanted his children to know who he was. Poor man. He missed the biggest opportunity of all, to know who his children are and to interact with them. He exchanged valuable breaths and seconds to have someone write about him instead of share himself.
LeBron James said, as his children stood at his side, that winning the NBA was the best day of his life. Really? What does Michael Jordan have for his 6 rings? No wife, little interaction with kids, bitterness at being forgotten. He chose poorly.
Apr '12
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
Where to even begin... The Great Adventure! ditto everything you said. As an employer, my women employees have left me stunned by how much they take and still expect special treatment. In Canada, a woman gets a year of paid maternity leave while the employer must hold their job open for them. So I put up with nearly a year of pregnancy, hold their jobs by law and then they come back and are unable to cope. I have arranged for the part time work but it is very hard as an employer to track the work level. Then my male employees want to work at home because they resent the females and what they are getting. Then the females take their sick days when their kids are sick and so on. There are about 40% female partners in Toronto's big law firms. Our lawyer of choice is a female partner from one of the big firms. Her husband is an at home Dad and she is not watching the school plays. He is. Men are not keeping women down. Women self select themselves out because they want the at home mother experience. I have not hired females in years.
Apr '12
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
Good question, Rachel! Surely it is equality of opportunity that is wanted by and for women? Don't they have that nowadays?
If women choose to stay at home with young children, surely that is their own affair? A few years out of the job market, perhaps consulting or doing part-time work, keeps them up-to-date and employable.
If women are prepared to pay the price to be "at the top", they do make it. Here in Canada, there are many powerful women "at the top". Many are married with children, and use professional cleaning services, train their children to do their own laundry, do some cooking, make their beds, clean up after themselves, all of which will make them better partners in their own marriages and families.
Women can "have it all" by rejecting the idea that they must be "house slaves", and organizing their children into becoming mature team players.
Apr '12
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
Mel Foil, I ran a course for women on how to communicate at work about 15 years ago. A video I used had a female architect saying that to get ahead she had to get a wife and, yes, that meant a cook, cleaner and someone to pick up the children and be there at home with them. Yes. That is what it takes. Yet women watching this were insulted because they wanted it all. Studies of male CEOs show that most of them have stay at home wives. Time and priorities determine level achieved. Women have the birth control pill so can choose what level of financial security they want to earn for themselves too. White males need the support now as they are the minority at university here in Canada. LeBron, and many people, say that a personal achievement is the best day of their life over a family moment, not just males. Here in Canada, women in business get the advantage.
Sep '11
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
Could care less whether women are at the top or not. If employers benefitted from part time, flexible workers, there would be more of them. It is very wrong for women to use government to force employers to hire them, as we see with affirmative action.
Most men don't work for the fun of it; they work out of love for their families. Many women also work out of love for their families, but feminists who believe that being a lawyer, or an accountant, is fun and exciting strike me as odd. Feminists are kind of nerdy; their main goal in life is making sure that everyone knows how smart they are. I find that off putting.
Also off putting is the fact that they react to male sacrifice with envy instead of gratitude.
Apr '12
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
Reading over comments like these always makes me reflect gloomily on how completely the feminists have won. They worked to incite a gender war so by golly, a gender war we shall have. Everything must come down to "advantage women" or "advantage men"! We're even playing their game of citing bland, context-free statistics to prove that it's men who are disadvantaged.
But see, this isn't a zero-sum game. I'm reminded of some work Charles Murray did on "reverse discrimination" -- the price ethnic minorities pay for having been gifted with so many unearned advantages. The upshot is that (in many quarters) their accomplishments aren't seen as real, they're not really regarded as part of the gang, and, in short, no one wants them around. Indaba's remarks are particularly reminiscent of this. Female employees, we are told, get certain maternity perks (obviously begrudgingly given) but then they still find it hard to cope with all their obligations. (If only they would do the responsible thing and chemically sterilize themselves... ) Ultimately these women are so privileged and blessed with opportunities that Indaba hasn't hired one in years!
Oh to be a Canadian woman!
Apr '12
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
What we need to realize is that the system can be bad for men and for women, and indeed for society as a whole. And I think it is. We need to think in a more elemental way about what we all really want and need, and whether there are more effective ways to organize ourselves so as to get those things.
But this seems surprisingly hard. Thus, Red Feline asks, "Surely it is equality of opportunity that is wanted by and for women?" I'd have thought it was fairly clear from my title and post that my answer to that is "no". Chasing the equality of opportunity phantom has created a world of trouble.
And why does it matter? Well, again Red Feline helps to clarify things: "If women choose to stay at home with young children, surely that is their own affair?"
It will be yours if their neglected children turn into criminals or deadbeats. More importantly, it will be everyone's problem if people decide that childrearing is such a burden that they just won't do it. Which is happening. All over the world.
Apr '12
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
Great point. When I did my MBA, I was pregnant and our course on leadership made us examine that very point. We were all type As and the prof got us to write journals. He asked us to write down our five top values and then see how much time we had invested in those values over the time of our course. I still have that journal and that list of values. I am quite shocked by my list that I wrote at the start of the course. I remember I thought he was mad for bringing some balanced off time to the world of go-go-go work. That prof is probably responsible for many type As making sure they put time into their loved ones.
Apr '12
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
Rachel Lu - love this thread and thank you for hosting it. I went and read more about this topic. The Great Adventure! is in Canada, I believe. So am I. We have such a female dominated society it may be hard to understand just how much. I thought the quote I used below captures just how different Canada already is with children and work.
"I try now to be honest about what I have to do during the day. I try to be honest with female and male colleagues. I've also done another thing Slaughter suggests--when I am speaking on a panel, I ask to have listed among my accomplishments "mother of three children." "
Canadian Men (lawyers, professionals) tell me all the time they will be late to the meting because they are dropping off the kids to daycare/school/ballet, etc. Every public speech I make, I am asked if I have a family and how many children and men all seem to list family. So these points made below were interesting to me because Canadian men are proud to talk about their daily family routine.
Apr '12
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
Rachel Lu:
Indaba's remarks are particularly reminiscent of this. Female employees, we are told, get certain maternity perks (obviously begrudgingly given) but then they still find it hard to cope with all their obligations. (If only they would do the responsible thing and chemically sterilize themselves... ) Ultimately these women are so privileged and blessed with opportunities that Indabahasn't hired one in years!
Oh to be a Canadian woman! · 57 minutes ago
It is amazing to be a Canadian woman in business, believe me. I get many business situations because a female is needed - quotas. We are given as Red Feline words it - equal access to opportunities.
I run a small business and it is my own cash out of my own pockets. Once you are big enough to have a paid CEO, the money priority can shift. I am in the finance industry. When clients are needing capital because the bank just called their loan, we are under huge time stress. I have women working from home or leaving to go pick up kids from day care, that is their work schedule and they get compensated to reflect it. They do not want the added hours.
Apr '12
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
Gloria Steinem's vision was to get women working and out of the home and motherhood was put far back on the list of priorities over abortion. Look at Romney's wife and her choice to have 5 lovely sons and be a devoted wife and mother - how are the MSM treating her? Having more than two kids is seen as a luxury - either for welfare mums or for mums with wealthy husbands to support them.
Dec '10
Re: Do We Care About Seeing Women "At the Top"?
I'm not sure what you're proposing, Rachel. More part-time work for women? More respect for making the choice to become a mother?