Do We Need to "Have it All?"

Things I will not be talking about in this column: the War on Women, the GOP (and how much it hates women,) Roe v. Wade and the threat of overturning it, etc. We already know how much the Republican Party hates women, so I’m not going to talk about it right before the election — I’m over it. Vote for Democrats (especially if you live in Massachusetts). I won’t even mention the fact that Scott Brown (R-Mass) supported an amendment that would have given employers carte blanche to deny contraception coverage to employees. He keeps saying it’s about “religious freedom,” but we know that’s a lie — Obama already gave religious institutions an exception. Moreover, I don’t think I need to even remind the public that covering preventative care (like contraception) is actually far cheaper for the United States in the long run. I like to think Middlebury’s student body is smart enough to realize these things.

So let’s get to more interesting things, shall we? Namely, binders full of women. But actually — let’s have that discussion. I think it’s high time we start talking women and careers on this campus. I know as a super-senior feb who is about to enter the real world and hypothetically begin my career, this topic is both relevant and urgent.

For some, the second debate was a sort of vindication, especially considering President Obama’s far improved performance over his lackluster first debate. For others, Governor Romney managed to continue his upward momentum, proving he could sound presidential and commanding. But to be honest, I couldn’t really get past the now infamous “binders full of women” comment.

Now, it wasn’t because of the preposterous nature of the comment, nor was it because Romney claimed credit for something he didn’t do (those “binders” were presented to him by a non-partisan group in Massachusetts that works to increase the number of women in politics). What struck me were the jeers I heard while watching the debate in Crossroads Café in response to Romney’s comment. While I do agree that his statements were more out of a place of conservative beliefs and support of hetero-normative gender roles, he inadvertently said something important. Workplace flexibility is something we should be talking about, but not only so women can go home and cook dinner. We should be talking about how to change the workplace so that there are just as many women able to pursue careers as men and just as many men who want to have more time with their families as women. We should be talking about workplace flexibility for men in addition to women.

Today, women only make up about 20 percent of senior managerial positions in the United States. Far less than half of our legislators are women and women continue to make less money than men. The feminist revolution of the 1970’s has certainly not succeeded in attaining full equality in the workforce. This is a problem.

This past summer, Anne-Marie Slaughter, a professor at Princeton and a former director of policy planning at the U.S. State Department, wrote a controversial piece in The Atlantic called “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All.” She left her very high-profile job at the State Department so that she could spend more time with her family after finding that the impossible hours and inflexible structure didn’t give her the work-life balance she needed as a mother. Slaughter’s article sparked outrage among many other women in high profile careers who saw her manifesto as an attack on the idea of progress.

Generally I don’t agree with many of Slaughter’s claims, particularly those that say women simply feel the “need” to be home more than men because of some vague biological claims. I do think her article highlights an important aspect of this argument, though. What does it mean to “have it all?”  Does that concept even exist as we’ve been told? More crucially, should it be something women must strive to attain? According to Slaughter, not necessarily.

This, I think, is the problematic nature of Slaughter’s article, but also an issue that most Western feminists have attempted to avoid: should we be moving away from the equality paradigm that many women have intensely focused on, and instead to changing societal norms and where we place value? I think the worry here is that Slaughter’s article is not meant to further encourage women to succeed in the workforce as it currently exists and could in fact dissuade women from even attempting to move to the very top of the pyramid.

Other women at the top of their fields, such as Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, have spoken at length as to how to increase the number of women at the top. Among her areas of focus, Sandberg discusses the fact that our society tells us that for men, success and likeability are positively correlated, while for women, success and likeability are negatively correlated. This tells us that women aren’t able to “have it all” as men often can, because we’re told to choose. It can be near impossible for women to push to the top, often because of familial pressures, or simply because the traits necessary to reach the top are discouraged in women.

So, then, how do we get more women to the top? Well, it certainly shouldn’t require binders. Like Sandberg, I think the world would simply be a better place for everyone if our leadership were split evenly. However, how do we get there? Do we need to reconsider rewarding those who can put the long hours in? Should we be telling men that they can have a rewarding experience as a stay-at-home father? I think a solution is going to require a combination.