OH, SWEET EGO. So, the first Director of Public Policy Planning at State Department would rather be at home. Oh, to have so much, then decide it’s just not enough.
Ann-Marie Slaughter writes that admitting “I want to be at home” was one of the hardest sentences for her to write in her defensive, self-indulgent Atlantic Monthly article. An admission that didn’t make the first drafts of the article, because she was evidently guilty or embarrassed about it. It took me a couple of drafts of this paragraph to keep the snark level low, because reading and listening to another privileged feminist professional opine that rising to her power position just doesn’t afford enough family time is just too mindnumbingly annoying. This was a surprise to her? That Slaughter spent her entire adult life without knowing her own personal priorities until now is really something coming from a woman in her 50s (which I am as well).
I can’t wait to read her article on menopause.
One suggestion I’ll offer to Ms. Slaughter. Just because you think something doesn’t mean you need to share it.
But the Atlantic article is getting so much buzz that the New York Times, and Slate.com decided to get some traffic love in their piece Talking About the Atlantic Piece That Everyone Is Talking About.
May the gods preserve us from privileged feminists who get their dream job then decide they want to go home.
And what is Ms. Slaughter talking about? What “generation of women” has told the “younger generation” you can have it all? We’re both far younger than Gloria Steinem, but went through the fire of the modern feminist revolution, and I don’t remember anyone telling me I could have it all; and I had a brother politician who was one of the Republican co-sponsors of the first E.R.A. bill in the Missouri State Senate, also debating Phyllis Schlafly on the finer points of feminism. What I was told is that I would be afforded opportunities comparable to men but I’d have to fight for them and that I wouldn’t be judged for being a professional woman, instead of focusing solely on motherhood and family, but could also actually choose neither of the traditional roles once expected. There wasn’t a feminist litmus test. Boy was that a whopper, because choosing to be childfree, I took a barrage of crap for decades, though none of it made a dent. No one ever told me it would be easy, fair or financially rewarding either, though economics is a basic premise of equality. Following your bliss isn’t for the faint of heart and feminism doesn’t guarantee the road won’t be rough, either.
I also knew I was responsible for what I chose and whining about what I didn’t get along the way wasn’t part of the deal. Well, you could whine, but nobody had to listen. Yet, here we all are listening.
There is not a bigger waste of time in the second decade of the 21st century than still hearing or reading from feminists the case of “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All.” That Slaughter engages in trumpeting the importance of flexibility in the workplace, then says not even that would coax her to stay, is worthless to everyone.
Yet the decision to step down from a position of power—to value family over professional advancement, even for a time—is directly at odds with the prevailing social pressures on career professionals in the United States. One phrase says it all about current attitudes toward work and family, particularly among elites. In Washington, “leaving to spend time with your family” is a euphemism for being fired.
Talk about reaching to make your case. Excuse me, but “leaving to spend time with your family” more likely means you’ve had a Larry Craig – John Edwards scandal and hope the media will buy it.
This understanding is so ingrained that when Flournoy announced her resignation last December, TheNew York Times covered her decision as follows:
Ms. Flournoy’s announcement surprised friends and a number of Pentagon officials, but all said they took her reason for resignation at face value and not as a standard Washington excuse for an official who has in reality been forced out. “I can absolutely and unequivocally state that her decision to step down has nothing to do with anything other than her commitment to her family,” said Doug Wilson, a top Pentagon spokesman. “She has loved this job and people here love her.
Think about what this “standard Washington excuse” implies: it is so unthinkable that an official would actually step down to spend time with his or her family that this must be a cover for something else. How could anyone voluntarily leave the circles of power for the responsibilities of parenthood? Depending on one’s vantage point, it is either ironic or maddening that this view abides in the nation’s capital, despite the ritual commitments to “family values” that are part of every political campaign. Regardless, this sentiment makes true work-life balance exceptionally difficult. But it cannot change unless top women speak out.
Only recently have I begun to appreciate the extent to which many young professional women feel under assault by women my age and older. After I gave a recent speech in New York, several women in their late 60s or early 70s came up to tell me how glad and proud they were to see me speaking as a foreign-policy expert. A couple of them went on, however, to contrast my career with the path being traveled by “younger women today.” One expressed dismay that many younger women “are just not willing to get out there and do it.” Said another, unaware of the circumstances of my recent job change: “They think they have to choose between having a career and having a family.”
I don’t care what any woman does with her life, but when she decides what she’s got isn’t what she really wants, I’d appreciate it if she’d not globalize it into a feminist whine about how woman can’t have it all. Newsflash bitches, men can’t either!
Ms. Slaughter seems to have brought her children in to explain just how important her job was and the sacrifices required from her family because of it, which her husband gladly supported, from what I can understand. But leave that aside. The reason she left isn’t about the teen needing her, it’s about how much she needs them.
Pause and let that one sink in.
Is that possibly the message here? That women would simply rather be at home, because it’s all just too hard thinking about what your teenager is doing when you’re at work? Well, hells bells, thank the gods for Slaughter’s memo, because younger women can now no longer expect women who have made it to stay there and continue to change things for the next generation.
It’s women like Slaughter who can tell the best story about the hardship of working moms, devise a way through to help women who have to work, because the boys aren’t the right spokesperson. Instead she wrote an article about how power demands too much from girls. Oh, but she’s not the only one!
Since it’s all just too much for the privileged feminists it’s pretty clear women coming up are screwed.
I simply cannot believe we’re still talking at this level.
The real truth is somewhere between boredom and emotional sentimentality, along with the privilege of having reached her dream position and deciding it wasn’t all that. Slaughter and other dynamo women made it, but judged “it” wasn’t worth keeping when compared to the tugs of home and hearth. It couldn’t be any clearer that the burning desire to run the world and dominate it that men have deep inside doesn’t seem to run in women.
Sounds to me the biggest mistake Slaughter made was not starting her own small business so she could craft her own hours and make the choices she wants.
No wonder we don’t have a female president yet. Our most brilliant females are still clutching 1950s fireplace fantasies out of “Mad Men,” along with guilt and their own emotional needs about being at home, deciding to leave a demanding job that her family understands is about changing the world, but she’s just not that into it anymore now that she’s actually doing it.
Duty doesn’t figure into it for these women, we’re being told, like it does with men. However, American society needs these women, who now we find out aren’t up to it, making it better, more equal, with more females leading so the scale can tip toward getting real healthcare that works, understanding the poor’s plight, that programs around the world to help women make America more secure, the list is endless. Where women tread things change dramatically, because no one has a voice like a woman speaking about economic equality, family challenges, including parental care, etc.
If success and reaching your dream job, while having a family at home support you, isn’t enough for feminists, then I honestly don’t know what any of it, the Ledbetter Act, equality, pay equity, having female governors, female senators and world leaders is all about.
I’ll guess we’ll all just have to take Hillary’s no for an answer, then make sure Elizabeth Warren is really up to it, before hoping a female Democratic president could actually happen.
What an embarrassment of riches elite feminists have achieved, only to find out it’s all just too much, the price too high, no matter what currency is applied.
Maybe conservatives can give feminists some advice, because evidently they’ve had this figured out for a long time.
Wow… Where to start? OK… So Ann-Marie Slaughter doesn’t like her work-life balance so she tells all women (especially younger ones) that they’ve been “had” by…. feminists? So her personal struggle carries weight and this is now some revelation or something? I’m a guy and can smell her BS from a world away.
My question is why accept the job in the first place? She’s no dummy. She knew being the first Director of Public Policy Planning at State Department would be demanding and high profile (aka “taking away from family life while doing something important”). See, this just screams of calculated self-righteousness. Almost like she was just waiting for the right time and BAM! Looky looky at what I said and it’s GOLD!
Indeed.
Oh sweet baby jeebus onna pogostick!!!!!
I know!
This post was quite timely as I just listened to her in an NPR interview while driving. I was rather livid while hearing her speak and wondered if it was just me! Obviously, not! She did no favors to women everywhere. Good post, Taylor.
I think she has crossed over to the Stepford Wives Zone now. She knew what she was getting into. She had a choice I am sure to be a stay at home mom or working mom and she choose working mom. Most parents who work horrible hours especially working-class parents always think to themselves if they should have stayed with their childern more and work less, but then these parents know that they have to provide a roof, food on the table so they don’t have a choice if your poor or middle class. Slaughter should be greatful to have had the job she had. Her childern were well took care of, which I should be the main thing. More women are working and now a theres a large growing number of house-husbands, who now stay home and take care of the house and childern while their wives work, which is fantastic, for both spouses. Men can now spend time with their childern when they couldn’t before, and women can go out to the workplace and be the breadwinner. Its something to be proud of, not frowned upon. If women have house-husbands or good childcare, thats all that working women should worry about. There is no do-overs in life, If you go out to the workplace and its not a flexable job, well thats what you are getting. Its life, as long as your family has a roof and food on the table, just be greatful.
Forgive me as I did not finish reading the entire article this lady wrote. Perhaps it’s due to the pharma-roulette the doctors have to play with me from time to time. But, several thoughts came to the surface as I read, and it just made me angry. Couldn’t agree more with all the commentors above, yet I would like to mention one other thing.
When George W. Bush brought on Vietnam 2.0 (Iraq), National Guard units were federalized and shipped off. There were a lot of women in these units, subject to the “stop-loss” policy that had them during multiple tours. Some were killed, many were wounded, and ALL came back with the experience of the insanity of war.
Then I thought of Karen Hughes, a Bush assistant, leaving the White House not long after the Iraqi invasion, to “spend more time with her family.” At the time it begged this question, as did this latest article: how many of these women in Iraq, wives, daughters, mothers, sisters…how many of them would have preferred “more time with their families?” They didn’t have that option because they were doing their DUTY. I’ve seen these young ladies at my local VA hospital, and like their male counterparts, are flotsom from an ego-war brought on my exuberant ignorance. I’ll salute them; I’ll shake their hand and thank them for their service.
But I won’t thank a whiner. There are women who not only do not vie for a State Department position, but are struggling still for combat roles for women. They have the guts and fortitude that are lacking in many people, men and women alike. True feminism makes men and women stronger. Anything less is tossing away the gifts bestowed by those who came before. I guess some people can’t handle standing on the shoulders of giants.
Taylor-Another spot on post filled with quotable quotes, but for me it boils down to this:
DING! DING!! DING!!!
Oh, Good, christy, kripesy, kraspy, effffing grief….
There are so many things I want to say, I don’t know where to start…I guess I will start with….Ann-Marie, take your sniveling whining and go home and stop trying to pretend you are symbol of something significant regarding you gender. Let somebody who wants and needs your job have it. Somebody like me, who late in life saw jobs similar to mine being shipped oversees or given to much younger individuals with 0 experience, but who were willing and able to work for much less. I am still healthy, youthful and energetic and would be more than happy to have your job!
Next, Taylor said it all: You need you kids more than they need you, and guess what? The older they get the more profoundly you will understand this when you find out they have less than 0 time for you once they get busy with their own families and their own lives. Thank goodness, I worked full time as a single mom while raising my son and he turned out just fine, has a great wife and 2 kids of his own, but with all that, I wouldn’t expect him to be hanging on to mommy’s apron strings. The fact that he has flown the nest and is doing fabulously well without out mommy dearest, warms my heart and makes me feel as if I must have done something right. As Kahil Gibran wrote:
“Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.”
You get my drift. That simple essay by Gibran served as my general guiding light on how to parent….
Next….two things……BARBRA STREISAND!!!!
Now Annie can bemoan her failure at not being able to have it all. Because if there ever was a woman who has is all it is Barbra Streisand and it is not because she was born with a silver spoon in her mouth, and/or barbie-doll-like looks. No, she grew up in Brooklyn, lost her dad when she was about 18 months old, had a less than supportive mom and step dad. So everything Barbra has now she earned THE HARD WAY, by believing in herself and developing to their fullest her considerable gifts.
Along the way, Barbra managed to alter forever what is considered “beautiful” and….also managed to raise a fine young son. She was single for most of her life, although she had relationships along the way, and finally settled into to what appears to be a terrific marriage with dreamboat Jim Brolin.
Oh, and now at the age of 70, she is redefining the senior years. She has a motion picture, “Guilt Trip” coming out next Christmas with Seth Rogen. It’s about a mother and son making a trip across the country by car to reunite her with a former love interest.
But wait, there’s more! She is also about to go back behind the camera and direct a film next year. And let’s not forget, she completely designed her new ranch home in California, and wrote a book about the process, “My Passion for Design”.
This doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of Barbra’s charitable Streisand Foundation nor the time she has spent raising the awareness of Heart Disease and its toll on women…I could go on and on…
My point is, dear Annie…YOU ARE EFFING WRONG!!!!
You can have it all if you DO IT ALL!!!
And if you feel you want to be somewhere else, then go there but don’t try to make this about all women. This is only about you, Ann-Marie. It is not about me. It is not about young women. You want to stifle young women to prop up your choices. Well, they are your choices and yours alone. They do not have to be the choice of any other woman.
In no way do you speak for me. My role model is Barbra Streisand, who once recommended the book, “Your Life Is Your Message”. Well, all you have to do is look at Barbra’s life and you get the message, loudly and clearly:
YOU GET OUT OF LIFE WHAT YOU PUT INTO IT!!!
If you succeed as one of the greatest vocalists of all time, and then discover you want something else,then become a Broadway star…
If you succeed as a Broadway star and then discover you want something else,then become a movie star.
If you win an academy award as a movie star and then discover you want something else,then write movie music an win an Academy Award for a song.
If you succeed as a movie star and movie songwriter, and then discover you want something else,then become a movie director and producer.
If you succeed at all of the above, and then discover you want something else,then become a home designer and author.
And, while you are doing all of the above, it is possible to also be a loving mother and devoted wife.
It is possible.
Is it going to be easy? Hell, no!
If little Barbra from Brooklyn whose father passed away when she was very young, and with the mom who didn’t believe her could do this, we all have the potential to mine our God-given potential and be anything we want to be.
And, it doesn’t have to exclude motherhood and partnership nor does is have to include motherhood and partnership. It is up to the woman and that is as it should be.
It disgusts me that drivel such as that by Ann-Marie even gets any press at all.
Very well said! Spot on!
Seconded.
Well, I am sorry to be the contrarian here but I must. I have not read her article yet but intend to. I did hear her interview on NPR and while something in her personality has always annoyed me, I did not have the full of rage reaction that Taylor and others here had to it.
Sorry guys I don’t believe that you can have it all at least not all at once. Taylor you know this, I assume this is one of the reasons you decided to be childless, a decision I have full respct for in it’s integrity and bravery.
Call me old school but I still think raising your child right is the most important thing a person can do. I think it was Jackie Kennedy who said something like ..” if you don’t get it right with your children then your life has not counted for much.” I realize she came from the stepford generation but those words have always rung true for me.
All kids are different and all parents are different but the teen years are when a kid can get off the tracks and never get back on them. They need parental involvement more than any other time save the first five years. Being a single working mom something had to give during those years, for me it was my socal life. Yes, your kids are becoming independent and pulling away but they need to know someone is home seeing them off and waiting up for them to come home, someone who can rescue them from a bad situation at the end of the phone. Someone to smell their breath and look in their eyes when they come home. Who knows if a romance has gone bad or a friendship is on the rocks, who can recognize the signs of depression or bullying or sexual abuse.
Because Slaughter is an elite does not make those years any easier for her kids,maybe materially but not emotionally. Back when I was working with neglected and abused poor kids my younger brother was teaching outdoor eduction to the children of the elite and we would compare how both sets were suffering from emotional neglect. Simply because one can afford nannys, tutors, test prepers, therapists, house keepers does not make children raised in those environments any less needy for their parents.
Once agan a women expresses her frustration with how unchild rearing friendly our culture is and once again she get slammed by women.Life has many phases and if you are lucky to live long enough you can work a lot of things in but your children only grow up once.
In Sweden if a parent works late they are considered a poor parent. Is it any wonder that Sweden has the most well adjusted and content with their life populations? Some how or other Sweden is a successful country dispite all their evil socialistic ideas about child rearing
I agree with this.
The devil is in the details, and those how believe that there is a one-size fits all approach to good parenting and exactly what “being there” means.
I have seen a parent sit in the same room, and in fact, actually holding a baby and he wasn’t really “there” with the child. He was zoned out watching TV and holding the kid like he was a sack of potatoes.
And I have seen a parent, hundreds of miles away having a very meaningful and engaged conversation with a child, who was actually more present than the one who was physically holding the kid.
Finally, I believe Jackie leaves out a whole population of folks like Taylor, who make a conscious decision to not have children. What are they? Chopped liver? Do their lives have no meaning because they don’t have kids? They still pay taxes which fund many public institutions that support our children.
I for one am glad Taylor is here to provide some balance and meaningful discussion. I think we all need to be open to how people manage to parent their children. There is no single right answer.
My issue is someone like Anne-Marie who chooses to whine about her choices and then has the audacity to think her choice is more profound than mine or anyone else’s.
I get what you mean about Slaughter’s self importance and I would never relegate people who chose not to have children like Taylor to any worthless category, ever, that was not in my thoughts at all.. My comments were intended for people who do chose to have kids. I agree there is no one size fits all but I don’t think a long distance meaningful conversation beats being there, even thought I know that a parent can certainly be there without really being there..Sometimes kids just need you there so they can ignore you. It matters.
Think of all the people you have heard say, I would never be were I am today without my mother. I am about as feminist as a person can be, just ask my daughter but there is no substitute for a mother’s attention,sorry but it is true.I am not saying one cannot be a successful person without it but it leaves a hole in one’s core that is not fillable.
Well, there are a lot of people I know who have been emotionally and physically abused by their mothers who would disagree. It gives a whole new meaning to the words, “I would never be where I am today without my mother.”
I wouldn’t trade my relationship with my son for anything in the world. I didn’t do everything right, but I did the best I could, being a single mom who traveled a lot.
And I think if you ask my son, he would tell you I was “always there for him” and also that he wouldn’t be where he is today if it weren’t for me.
And as much as that makes me feel good, I don’t think it is true. He is and always was a gem of person, and probably would have grown up just fine regardless of who his parents were. I think my biggest prayer as a parent was hoping that I didn’t screw up my kid.
Frankly, I think people can be pretty damn judgmental when it comes to how others choose to parent. And that is on both sides. I think unless you walk a mile in the other person’s shoes, you have no right to judge them, but then that is just me.
Peace.
ladywalker~ Oh i know about kids who are abused by their parents, I worked with them for years. You talk about scars that won’t go away.
I try not to judge others parenting but as a teacher I found it hard not to sometimes. I’m am sure you did a great job with your son, we can only do the best we can.
My point and I guess I am making it badly is that our culture gives a lot of lip service to our children but no policy and no change in attitudes to make it possible to , ” do it all” In so far as Slaughter was reflecting that, we should not all jump down her throat.
Lake Lady 23 June 2012 at 11:44 am
The term is childFREE, by the way. There is nothing “less” about the decision not to have children or a husband for decades. That said, llady, I know you didn’t mean anything derogatory. Secondly, you can call it “old school” if you choose & you can also decide to believe anything that works in your life & family, so I’m not going to address those choices & your judgment, lakelady. That’s *your* choice. We each get one.
No one gets to say what’s right for someone else.
So, with that… There are MUCH broader consequences at stake when talking about feminism, what it means and how each feminist woman plays her part.
The modern feminist revolution was first about eschewing traditional roles & committing to changing the status of women from sex to work to the world. You don’t do that from home. Period.
I’ll write a lot more about this in the coming weeks.
Feminism in terms of working in the upper echelon of government, business, entertainment, etc. is a commitment to advancing women beyond traditional roles, while impacting the fabric of America as women take our place next to men in all fields.
Feminism at Slaughter’s level, even mine, perhaps yours too, requires SACRIFICE *if* your intention is to manifest change for women, whether in your work, your community, your church, etc. Yeah, that’s right, changing the world so women can have more than we do today and becoming an instrument of that change requires SACRIFICE.
Slaughter turned that upside down to mean martyrdom. It’s the most insulting part of her overly defensive whine.
If Slaughter & others are an example, American feminists today may not have the heart for what feminism requires. The greater accomplishment for a wider world of equality for women, led by American feminists, may be too much for the current progressive class. That wouldn’t surprise me at all.
People have mixed feelings about Margaret Sanger, which I understand. Sanger’s feminism began with sacrifice, on top of a foundational commitment to duty and passion to make the lives of ALL American women better.
Conservatism is strangling Democratic ideals, with Slaughter another example of the shift rightward. She got her dream job, had the support of her husband & kids, but she obviously felt something was missing and wanted to be at home. That’s *her* choice & she’s entitled to bail and return. What she is not allowed to do is fuck with the transformational aspect of feminism by dumping her angst, guilt and defensiveness on the rest of us by using her prowess to act like she’s giving some clarion call to the younger generation like she’s some frickin’ sage.
The feminist call is why Mavis Leno, back in the ’90s, started crying out about what was happening to women in Afghanistan. It’s why I’ve argued there is no such thing as post-feminism, because the prupose of American feminism can be utilized to empower women around the world in hopes of stabilizing countries.
See Hillary’s women’s rights are human rights.
Hillary’s insistence that she’s through with politics comes after a lifetime of work for women, culminating at the State. She may feel it’s the next generation of women’s turn. She’s done all she can do in her life & now she wants the rest of her life to be her own. She’s earned it & if that’s her decision so be it, but you can hardly blame Sen. Gillibrand for saying she’s going to ask her to run. That’s Gillibrand’s feminist duty, because there is much work to be done for women & she knows Hillary can help do it.
There is one thing about feminism that is rarely acknowledged and is why there are so few who embrace it, because not very many can live up to what it demands. A belief that women require female leaders to light the way to more freedom, which will leave a legacy for the next generation that allows women to rise with ease. Once again, this requires sacrifice to make the world a little bit better for women, as well as the men who benefit from our full participation in crafting a better society in the 21st century.
Taylor~ I am so sorry about my language thoughtlessness. Of course I don’t think that deciding to be childfree is anything less than any other choice in life. I have friends who have made that decision and not only do I respect their choice on the matter, I can see that each made the right choice for themselves.
I agree that fullfilling feminist ideals requires sacrifice, I just don’t think children are the ones who should be making it. For the last thirty or more years we have had the ability to plan our families ( who knows about the future at the rate things are going.)
If one knows that they are going for a career that will be incompatable with child rearing, then don’t have children or only have one and make sure your partner wants to share in the responsibilities. My daughter likes to say that she is a well adjusted only child and Sammy will be too.Her choice came from her own personal belief that she only had the ability to do a really good job with one.
I really hate to see these starlets who seem to think children are accessories.I remember Kate Hepburn saying she had no children precisely because she had such good parents. She knew she wanted to act and that it would not be compatable with raising a child the way she thought they should be raised.
“Conservatism is strangling Democratic ideals, with Slaughter another example of the shift rightward”….I totally agree with this statement and not just for this recent piece of hers.After catching her on a couple of talks shows I was shocked to learn she was a Dem.
I guess my argument is with the idea that one can have it all at once.If a career does not lend itself to child rearing, don’t have them. If it does like with my sister in law who stayed home while her kids were small, all the time working on advanced degrees.She has been a kick ass principal for the last twenty five years and will mentor other women principals in her retirement.
I focused on teaching and raising Sarah for many years, now I am a small town mayor who just started our first female internship program. I’m a market master who is guiding some of my younger female growers into starting a co-op, I’m a local pol who has convinced other women to follow suit and we have two women on our board of alderpersons, a first.
There are all kinds of ways to advance our interests.
BTW Taylor~ Did you know that your title, the Hillary Effect was used as a descriptive phrase in Newsweek this week?
It is in the Omnivore section whose theme this week is about off the beaten path tourism. In the paragraph about Burma it starts out….” Call it the Hillary effect…….”
THEIVES!!!!!!!
No, I didn’t, llady.
Indeed, secularh!
“I simply cannot believe we’re still talking at this level.”
Neither can I, and I’m a guy!
My wife is from Iowa. She’s usually quite apolitical, although of very liberal leanings. But the war on women we’re seeing now makes her seething mad. I mean SCARY angry. I hope there are tens of millions like her out there. We certainly aren’t seeing it yet, but I hope so.
Makes me seeth too.
Great commentary, Taylor. Truly first rate!
And, interesting dialogue between ladywalker and Lake Lady.
After reading that article by Slaughter and then some interviews she did, here is what I felt this was all about.
(btw, I, too have found Slaughter arrogant and off-putting as she seems to have bought the adoring part of the press she has received along the years. For me, she epitomizes the 1% who think they are above it all, always wanting heir own way and when they don’t get it, they retreat into their privileged worlds only to point fingers at everyone but themselves. And, her article and her comments have only confirmed my thoughts about what she was all about all along.)
Taylor wrote:
Ann-Marie Slaughter writes that admitting “I want to be at home” was one of the hardest sentences for her to write in her defensive, self-indulgent Atlantic Monthly article. An admission that didn’t make the first drafts of the article, because she was evidently guilty or embarrassed about it.
I think she’s was feeling guilty but not for the reasons she states and in which she blames feminism for her guilt for “not being able to have it all”. And, how “I want to be at home”.
IMHO, after having read a couple of interviews with Slaughter, I’ve come to the conclusion that she wanted her job back at Princeton as a tenured Professor because that’s what made her the happiest and most secure.
When she accepted the position to work for SOS Clinton at State, Princeton rules grant Professor’s two year leave and if they don’t return to their position with Princeton, they lose their tenure. IMO, that’s what this is all about and she’s got the damn chutzpah to blame feminism and other women for her “heart-breaking dilemma ”
Here are some comments of Slaughter’s in this linked article http://tinyurl.com/7rj4zor
Always, always, always. And I wanted to be a lawyer who would then go to work in the State Department, and I was going to go work for a big New York firm, and then work with a partner and go in and out. That’s how a lot of people got to do foreign policy in the ‘60s, ‘70s, ‘80s, all the way back for decades.
And when I went to work for a big New York law firm, I realized, “I don’t want to do this.” [Laughs.] “I can’t do this. I’m not going to be happy doing this.” So I hung out for four years at Harvard getting a degree, but basically trying to figure out what on earth I was going to do, and I ended up being a professor, and I loved it.
But the point is, when I wasn’t happy, I did something about it. And that’s been true here, too. I had a dream job and I loved it, but I was very much not happy and realized that even contrary to my own expectations for my own career, and I think many people’s expectations of me, I didn’t want to keep at something when I felt very unhappy and that it was simply the wrong thing for me to be doing. I tell my students: always follow your passion, but it’s not always clear what your passion is.
So if you wake up in the morning and are really miserable about going to work, you need to have the confidence and the fortitude to find something else. And to believe that you will find something else.
Here is what she also said in an another interview:
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.
And, this is what she says in that video interview with Rosin:
I’m dealing with a job with a boss, a fantastic boss (Clinton) but a boss and so for the first time, I had to be on someone else’s schedule, meeting somebody else’s deadlines. I’ve always (my comment; not always Ann-Marie) been a tenured Professor which is indeed a great life and above all great flexibility.
My comment: What a selfish, overly privildeged, arrogant comment and attitude. Most of us, even those of us who are in one of the high felutin professions have to report to someone, meet deadlines and have to play in the backyard of our boss as he/she has to answer to their boss and sometimes bosses as in the case of a CEO who has to answer to the Board of Directors and the Stockholders. Ms. Slaughter is a spoiled woman who is unused to answering to anyone else no matter how fantastic that someone else may be.
And, what about all those women and men at Princeton and then State who had to abide by her schedule, deadlines? She wants to be the boss over others but her mantra is “don’t do as I as want to do, but do as I say”? What a prat!
So, while she may have wanted to spend more time with her kids, her main reason IMHO was her fear of losing her Tenure which because of the freedom it afforded her and as her admitted work experience indicates, she didn’t want to work in the pressure-cooker, high-stress of a New York Law Firm or in the job she accepted from Clinton.
And, now she uses the “women can’t have it all” mantra which in some way is a backlash against feminists and feminism because in truth of fact, no one can have it all not even men.
She was guilty for leaving State because many women looked up to her as paving the way for them in that high-powered and extremely stressful job (the first woman to hold that position( which she just couldn’t handle because she was used to the Ivory Tower of tenured Professors which made her the happiest with the least pressure and according to her, she didn’t have to answer to a bosses’ deadline and own schedule. Instead she uses the poor excuse of “women can’t have it all” and point the finger at feminism and other women (and the workplace away from the Ivory Tower) for her not really wanting to be that role model others expected of her and felt guilty for wanting a way less stressful job which made her happy.
That’s not a crime and if that is what makes her content, then so be it. But, as I said she was so taken with own self and pre occupied with others admiration for her as a role model, pioneer, that she couldn’t admit to them or herself that that’s not what she wanted.
Had Slaughter admitted that, she would have had the respect of many women and men. But, she choose to blame others for her own guilt of not wanting to mix it up in the high powered, high stress workplace of a NY Law Firm or at the State Department.
What a arrogant prat, unwilling to take responsibility for something most wouldn’t blame her for; to want a less stressful, less high powered job working for the man (or woman in this case).
Poor, poor Anne Marie.
Most of us don’t have those choices to make. Perhaps if she worked at that NY Law Firm longer than she did and/or worked at State further than her cushy Princeton job would allow, she would have been more able to relate to the rest of us including those who are her direct reports at Princeton and State who don’t have those fall-back, cushy choices to make to suit our own needs.
I used to follow her on Twitter. I just un-followed her.
Here is a satirical and biting take on poor Anne-Marie. http://tinyurl.com/82l3wbh
Loved reading this, newdealdem1.
That link at the end is HILARIOUS.
“When she accepted the position to work for SOS Clinton at State, Princeton rules grant Professor’s two year leave and if they don’t return to their position with Princeton, they lose their tenure. IMO, that’s what this is all about and she’s got the damn chutzpah to blame feminism and other women for her “heart-breaking dilemma ”
Oh jeebus crispies onna popcicle stick with pins through hands and FEET!!!!! This really is the cherry on top of the shit sunday. And the link is PERFECT!!!! Since when did ANY feminist say women can have it all…..without working just as maniacally hard and long as ANTONE who wants and has that sort of position?!!!!!
That’s just parroting the limpwithnoballs and repugnantklan conSERvative line about what THEY say feminism says or means.
Thanks, sec.
And, heh.
First, let me thank Lake Lady. What you said about a woman expressing the struggle of raising kids in our modern world and getting slammed by other women resonates with me. Also, I have not finished Slaughter’s article yet–I did hear the NPR interview and it also resonated with me in that you don’t know ahead of time if your kids will be just as needy in adolescence as they were in toddlerhood. But let me digress for a minute and ask a question that applies to men and women. Is it possible to be a good parent and also rise to the top of a profession? Should it be possible? We keep hearing laments about neglected kids but we also hear laments that the top tier lacks diversity. This is a separate issue from parents, single or otherwise who are squeezed by econmic circumstance to spend too little time with their kids.
I haven’t even read the article…duh…but after reading newdealdem’s commentary I feel stupid for being in the conversation, I was going on the NPR interview.
Thanks for your comment and I do mean what I have said about child rearing having been a child advocate for a whole career. I so agree with the idea that nobody can have it all in our culture, neither men nor women.
Now I better go read the article and wipe the egg of my face.
Dear Lake Lady,
You don’t have egg on your face.
First, let me say that I’ve been an admirer of your posts here for a long while and it’s great sharing space with a commenter as yourself.
Second, I was lucky to have happened upon that article where Slaughter was complaining about working for a Law firm that was high stress and this was before she had any children.
Third, Slaughter, as you said, is arrogant and self-important so you recognized those traits in her before she wrote that disingenuous article, so no harm no foul there.
There are a couple of things going on here. One is your observations about women and children and the best way to care for those children especially when a woman works and how compromised so many of us feel when balancing those things is the hardest thing in the world and this in relation to feminism.
The next thing is Slaughter herself and how she presents herself as a “victim” of feminism or the high expectations that women, feminist women place on other women like herself (even though she emphatically refers to herself as a feminist and is proud of that identity) when they have high powered, uber-stressful jobs.
The thing with Slaughter is that she has a history of retreating from high-powered, high-stress jobs BEFORE she became a mom as that article I quoted indicated. There is nothing wrong with that: wanting to work in a profession we are passionate about but unhappy with some of the positions associated with that profession and eventually looking for less stressful but equally satisfying, fulfilling jobs (as Slaughter found as a tenured Professor at Princeton) in our profession.
That NY Law firm job she resigned from before she had kids was a sign of things to come when she resigned from the high powered/high stress job at State (only difference is that she is now a mom). And, how she loved being a tenured Professor at Princeton which was much less stressful and gave her the opportunity to be free from meeting deadlines of a boss.
In this regard, Slaughter is not an example to use when we are talking about women with children who are trying to balance work with home life when seen in conjunction with the article I posted with her salient comments regarding her prior working history. It’s just an excuse she’s using, imo, to detract from her own personal choice of not being “happy” (oh so American isn’t it: the pursuit of happiness as if we could pursue it: one of the weakest tenants in the Declaration of Independence) working in high stress Corporate America or in a high stress job at the State Department..
That said, your comments about women and the raising of children whilst trying to reach one’s potential within the work sphere are valid. It’s just that Slaughter is the worst example as a jumping off point to discuss that important topic.
One other thing, StrideHyde, with whom I’m almost always in agreement and whose posts I enjoy reading said this: Is it possible to be a good parent and also rise to the top of a profession?
I, along with my partner, am the mom of a teenage daughter. First, there are not that many “to the top of a profession” positions to go around. And, not all people (men and women) want to be the top dog and are satisfied with their responsibilities and what they contribute as professionals and have a feel for how they plan to raise their kid(s). So, I don’t know how to answer your question because so few people are in that category except perhaps for the Potus and his family and some corporate and Hollywood honcho’s.
Personally, I never wanted to make it to the top of my profession. And, I wanted a child as well. I am perfectly content to be where I landed after many years in my profession and was lucky to have found (after a long time) and fallen in love with a partner who felt as I did about work and career and family (even though she was/is more ambitious than I am professionally which was fine with me) and we’ve managed for twenty years to not always get things right but to do the best we could for our kid and ourselves. Has it been a smooth ride along the way? No, and anyone who says otherwise is lying.
Being a parent is not easy (understatement) especially now and being a working woman is not easy and every person, man or woman, who makes that decision to become a parent whilst also passionate (or not, but has to work to make ends meet) about their work have trade offs to face and they are sometimes painful but we all do what we are capable of doing for our kids, our spouses and for our jobs. And, as others have said, there is not one way of being a parent. And, some people who have kids should never have had them. And, those who made a conscious choice to not have kids or never thought about having kids are no less than some of us who did but some of us who are parents have been unfairly judgmental of those who chose otherwise which sucks.
To reiterate, there are not that many professions where a million people can make it to the top of their profession. The top is limited to a few much like the Presidency.
And, there are no people who are perfect parents. There is no such thing.
Slaughter’s whining is just that as her work history proves and is a poor example to the rest of us sincerely trying to balance our home lives with our work lives with or without kids.
Working women with kids and the fulfillment of one’s professional potential and the artificial restraints put upon us (by society or by one’s job not providing for maternal or paternal leave or flex time or on site day care, etc) is part of the problem. And, here I’m in agreement with Slaughter. But, as Taylor said, she then goes on to retract that and once again blames other women and feminism for her own shortcomings. It’s no wonder why so many people are scratching their collective heads from what she wrote and calling her on it.
Blaming feminists, feminism and other women for these shortcomings in corporate America and blaming feminists, feminism and other women for not personally wanting to participate in the high stress, high anxiety jobs such as being a well-compensated attorney in a NY Law Firm or with one of the most powerful and well-compensated positions at the State Department is not only disingenuous but is harmful to other women (who are willing to take on those risks and stresses whether parents or not) and the very idea of feminism which is only aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women in public and private life.
There is just so much here to address but Slaughter is not the example to use to start that conversation.
Peace.
newdealdem ladywalker, Taylor et.all ~ thamks so much for the long and thoughtful conversation. It very much serves to have us all reflect on the meaning of femism in our active lives….newdeldem you are so right Slaughter is a very poor model to focus on and Taylor’s outrage at her taking the name of feminism in vain is now clear to me.
so sorry for the typos~
Now, this is a cool boss.
http://tinyurl.com/767thl7
It actually hurts thinking what things might be like had she prevailed.
Hill is a kill…so great to see her level of confidence so high she can be silly and let lose that fabulous laugh.I bet the people who work at State just love her.Slaughter said she would be willing to walk through fire for her…ha! empty words…her toes got hot and she was out of there.
Well…I guess I’m a lone voice here, but that’s OK, not the first time and likely won’t be the last. After reading the whole Slaughter article, rereading the TM post, the comments and links, I’m left feeling this is the latest in the “mommy wars,” and that makes me sad. I do not have much in common with Slaughter, I’ve never been finacially secure and I’m moderately successful in a brutally competitive field that is overwhelmingly male dominated. I was the sole bread winner most of the first decade of this millennium and am still the principal one. That said, I really identify with the idea that having kids can change you, that parenting is all on the job training, and your kids are surprise packages that keep surprising you. I have experienced the headiness of being in the thick of a successful professional episode and simultaneously losing sleep over an adolescent son who is crashing. And my husband is a very active father. Sometimes it takes both of us. Because of the episodic nature of my work, I can spend time with my youngster while collecting unemployment between gigs. Maybe Slaughter misunderstands what feminism is. Heck, maybe I misunderstand it. I always thought it was the belief that everyone, men and women should be free to make life choices and we should all work in our own way to make it easier, some by holding top positions, some by just being really good at what they do, some by working on changing rules and some by making choices that might seem to run counter to the revolution but pointing out that we want to keep old choices and also have new ones. I figured my part as “soldier”
in the struggle was performing above expectations in a non-traditional job, because God knows, everyone would notice and remember if I didn’t, and hoping my very presence as one of the first would make it easier and more routine for those that follow. But maybe that falls short of being a feminist. That’s a new idea to me, but one worth thinking about.
Well, stridehyde~ It sounds like you have it right to me. I don’t think anyone would argue with the fact that we all contribute in different ways at diferent times.
It is so true that having kids changes you and in ways you can’t imagine before hand. That may be what happened to Salughter and that is how you can relate to her.
I finally got that what others were complaining about ….it is her trying to make some bigger feminist meaning out of a personal decision.
I hope someday we’ll live in a world where people in high-powered jobs will be able to carve out family time (elderly parents, kids, whatever) and it will be unremarkable. I hope there will be a time when men and women alike can decide to put things on hold for awhile to take care of family matters and it will be equally unremarkable. It probably won’t happen in my lifetime, but it’s an ideal worth aiming for in my view.
This has been a terrific discussion and I have learned a lot. I really appreciate all of the extremely thoughtful posts by Lake Lady, newdealdem1, Stridehyde and I apologize if I came across a bit strong and/or misinterpreted anyone’s intentions.
Loved, loved, loved this statement: “That said, I really identify with the idea that having kids can change you, that parenting is all on the job training, and your kids are surprise packages that keep surprising you.” Boy, truer words were never spoken and that is exactly my take on being a parent. Well said!
Thanks everybody!