Her original article, "Why Women Still Can't Have It All": http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-can-8217-t-have-it-all/9020/1/
Blurb: It's time to stop fooling ourselves, says a woman who left a position of power: the women who have managed to be both mothers and top professionals are superhuman, rich, or self-employed. If we truly believe in equal opportunity for all women, here's what has to change...
Interesting, thought-provoking responses:
"Why is 'having it all' a women's issue? by sociologist," Stephanie Coontz: http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/25/opinion/coontz-women-have-it-all/index.html?hpt=op_t1
Coontz: We need to push for work-family practices and policies that allow individuals to customize their work lives according to their changing individual preferences and family obligations, not just their traditional gender roles.
Who said "We could have it all?" by Ruth Rosen: http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/ruth-rosen/who-said-%E2%80%9Cwe-could-have-it-all%E2%80%9D
Blurb/Rosen: What Anne-Marie Slaughter and so many other privileged women have failed to understand is that the original women’s movement sought an economic and social revolution that would create equality at home and at the workplace...Missing from the media’s coverage of these Mommy Wars are the millions of working mothers who will never have it all, but still must do it all. Millions of women cannot afford to care for the children they have, work dead-end jobs, and cannot begin to imagine living the life of a superwoman. These are the women that the radical women’s liberation movement addressed and for whom they sought decent jobs, sustainable wages, and government training, social services and child care. These are the women who are stuck on the sticky floor, not held back by a glass ceiling.
---
This debate illumines various interpretations of feminism and the extent to which women's goals and ideals tend to be influenced by these intepretations. Responses to Slaughter's article also demonstrate how a woman's socio-economic status can affect her paragon of feminism. Slaughter's 'superhuman' feminist prioritizes independent achievement over solidarity and sisterhood and embraces perfection and efficiency moreso than weakness and vulnerability. In reaction to Slaughter's article, authors such as Coontz and Rosen deconstruct and clarify the historical and sociological flaws in Slaughter's argument. They address the macro-perspective: How can we re-think gender roles so that 'having it all' isn't just a women's issue? What was the original intention of the feminist movement? How does Slaughter's privilege affect her view of feminism?
These articles touched me on a more personal level, though. I value having the opportunity to better understand and deconstruct the institutional forces that shape my decisions and "coming of age" as a young woman, but I often find myself focusing less on sides and issues, and more on something like...John Mayer's lyrical melodies from "Stop This Train": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BTzNX5OMN4.
Stop this train
I want to get off and go home again
I can't take the speed it's moving in
I know I can't but honestly won't someone stop this train
For me, the "train" are those institutional forces that can be hard to control and mitigate, the ones that can prevent me from figuring out what I want as an imperfect, quirky (weird!!), sensitive and vulnerable young woman. Slaughter's right: on the one hand, I want power, strength and perfection. For me right now that usually means I want to have an interesting job and stylish clothing; I want to be fit (and tan); I want to gain entrance into the graduate program of my choice; and I want to be a wordly, smart and accomplished woman, which is really more prototypical than uniquely me.
But then on the other hand, I want nothing more than to stop that crazy-ass train that probably made John Mayer grow out his hair, move to Montana, and record his uncharacteristic, subsequent Blues/Folk album, "Born and Raised." He clearly needed to get back in touch with some personal/spiritual roots, and, therefore, don't we all?
I am reminded again of a philosopher I referenced in a previous post, Jean Vanier, who maintains that we become more human when we become weaker. Oftentimes maturity is measured in terms of mastery and control: "I am a mature woman now. I am strong, accomplished, and 'together'. I have a life plan and an efficient, balanced daily schedule." But Vanier suggests that we mature as we find more ways to live at peace with our own and others' imperfections. He believes that "highlighting the universality and centrality of our shared fragility has the potential to unite us in commonality, [and that] the weak teach the strong to accept and integrate the weakness and brokenness of their own lives."
I still have a desire to be strong; to 'have it all'; to look good; to feel good; to accomplish great things; and to strike that awesome balance in life and work. Managing certain responsibilities, striving for goals, and contributing to society are also important milestones in maturity. But so far I have also been convinced that one of the hardest things to do is to know that where you are, what you are doing, and who you are at any given moment is always enough. I don't know why this can be so f*@$(*9 hard sometimes, but it really can be (#growingpains). Perhaps to be mature is to love yourself to the extent that others know that there is something worthwhile to be had when they're in your presence--and so that others, in turn, are affirmed in who they are as well.
Good night! :)
