AL Jazeera Opinion
|
|||
|
Working women should not feel ashamed if they are unable to be the do-it-all mothers idealised by some feminists.
Last Modified: 28 Jun 2012 07:14
|
Being emotionally present for one's child is more important than being physically present, says author [Getty Images]
Anne-Marie
Slaughter, a professor at Princeton University and former Director of
Policy Planning at the US State Department, recently made a splash when
the Atlantic published an article she wrote entitled "Why Women Still Can't Have It All".
The
piece is problematic, not for the excellent conclusions that it draws
but for the premises from which it flows. Slaughter, a highly
distinguished professor and, from what it sounds like, a committed and
loving mother, makes the case for the many ways in which "The Workplace"
can be adapted to accommodate the many peculiar needs that working
mothers face.
Slaughter
is particularly concerned that women are having children later in life,
causing the children's most difficult years to coincide with the peak
of their mothers' careers. Accordingly, more and more women are finding
themselves having to negotiate complicated professional careers in a
third-wave Western feminist world that has embraced a very hands-on
notion of motherhood. Slaughter's piece has been styled as a riposte to
Sheryl Sandberg, the Facebook executive who ostensibly argued that women
could do better in the workplace by not keeping their ambitions in
check in the name of family, apparently suggesting that women really
could "have it all".
| Riz Khan - Model mothers |
Three
premises undermine Slaughter's general argument. The first is the
assumption that women should be trying to have it all in the first
place. One of the most insightful projects I have ever undertaken was
reading through the autobiographies of leaders who have inspired my own
social activism. Nelson Mandela, Malcolm X, Steve Biko, Martin Luther
King Jr - they all have more in common than the fact that they are all
black men. They are also all men whose personal lives were deeply flawed
because they dedicated themselves to a cause that was bigger than their
immediate environment.
In
fact, I would argue that there is no one who has ever done anything
truly great, or at least of great impact, who hasn't had to live with
significant failures in their personal lives. No one can be all things
to all people all of the time. Slaughter's argument implicitly holds
women to a different standard than men, overlooking the many men who
fail at fatherhood and focussing on the relatively minor ways in which
everywoman may fail at motherhood.
The
fact is that women have come in late to the workplace. We weren't at the
table when the rules were being made, and so there is some pressure on
those of us starting out to conform to the pre-determined standard of
professionalism. Slaughter is right that "The Workplace" can do a great
deal to accommodate the peculiar needs of working mothers, but
Sandberg's point that women also shouldn't curb their ambition in
response to resistance is a valid one. Furthermore, it's not just women
who "can't have it all" - no one can. Making this a "women's problem"
unfairly overlooks the fact that there are many men who would also love
to collaborate on this project so that they, too, can spend time with
their families.
Helicopter parenting
Second,
Slaughter implies that helicopter parenting is the only way in which a
busy professional woman can raise successful children. I don't have
children of my own, but having only recently been a child myself, I'd
like to reassure Slaughter that being emotionally and psychologically
present for your children is far more important than being physically
present. I was raised by a working single parent who never came to
prize-giving days and avoided parent-teacher conferences because they
always clashed with work - all outwardly the hallmarks of bad parenting.
However, from a young age, my mother was open and honest with all of us
- we knew that if she didn't work, we didn't eat. More importantly, I
learned to work and desire to succeed without the constant need for
attention and affirmation. I learned to do the right thing and work hard
because it's the right thing to do, not because I wanted mommy's
approval.
Finally,
and this is an overarching point that Slaughter briefly reflects on, is
that the argument tries to make a broad generalisation from a set of
issues that only affects a sliver of the world's female population.
Slaughter concedes that she is writing for women of her demographic,
"highly educated, well-off women who are privileged enough to have
choices in the first place… who could be leading and who should be
equally represented in the leadership ranks". It takes some humility to
acknowledge one's privilege, and I commend Slaughter for doing that, but
this may be an opportunity in which the many poorer women who have
benefited from outreach and educational initiatives piloted by
better-off women could return the favour.
The
majority of the world's women are working and raising children on
nothing but hope and a desire to watch them succeed. They are able to do
this because they are willing to seek help, whether from grandparents
living in the home, or from distant relatives who move in to help with
household chores. The system is far from perfect - stories of cruelty
and stinginess against child-minders are a dime a dozen - but these are
things that can be fixed through legislative action. Going through
motherhood miserable and crushed by guilt for not being able to tuck
your kids in at night is not.
|
"For many, the prospect of having a happy, stable life is far more important than 'career', and it's hard to fault their logic." |
It is
the curse of Western feminism that far from rejecting the patriarchal
standard for good motherhood - super-wife, super-mother and just
generally super - women have only managed to acquire another layer of
responsibility to an already full plate - super-worker. The lesson of
"third-world feminism" is something that would serve Slaughter and her
peers well. Be present when you can - be the one who sets the rules and
determines the boundaries - but be willing to outsource the minutiae if
it helps protect your sanity.
Slaughter
did a brave thing by acknowledging her perceived shortcomings as a
mother to such a broad audience, but such public self-flagellation is
unnecessary. Working women who pay people to pick up their children from
school, or to do their laundry or to cook dinner have nothing at all to
be ashamed of. It's okay for grandma to braid your daughter's hair if
you can't be there, or for a teacher to discipline your children if you
can't make a parent-teacher meeting.
Similarly, much like the tale of the blind men and the elephant,
both Sandberg and Slaughter are right and yet both of them are wrong.
There are indeed many women who check their ambitions in the name of
family and some who end up regretting it. Even as a student, I met
several of my classmates' partners who had given up successful careers
to be with their partners as they pursue their Harvard dreams, some
having moved across the continental United States to make that happen.
For many, the prospect of having a happy, stable life is far more
important than "career", and it's hard to fault their logic. On the
other hand, I also know many women who stay focussed, and do everything
right only to hit that dreaded glass ceiling or to end up in a workplace
that prefers all their senior officials to have families but doesn't
seem to get that you need weekends off to date and meet people that you
may want to marry.
Most
women have good reasons for choosing either, and in disagreeing with
these choices, it may serve Western feminists well to avoid layering
guilt over what must already be a difficult decision-making process.
Nanjala Nyabola, a writer and political analyst, is currently a graduate student at Harvard Law School.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment