Anne Marie Slaughter and the "Unfinished Business" of work-life balance

[Anonymous]

AMS is a fraud. I remember years ago she was at FZ's CNN show and admantly said Assad would be out in 6 months (this was years ago). I laughed.

I know a number of people who were on HFAC and they told me she's a brown-noser of the highest order and that HRC hates her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AMS is a fraud. I remember years ago she was at FZ's CNN show and admantly said Assad would be out in 6 months (this was years ago). I laughed.

I know a number of people who were on HFAC and they told me she's a brown-noser of the highest order and that HRC hates her.

You don't need hearsay to figure that out. Just read her emails. "Tell Hillary I am sorry if my article offended her. I am so, so sorry. I humbly request the opportunity to explain to her", "Tell Hillary that her appearance on TV was bold and excellent", etc, etc, etc. In the meantime, it was Clinton that was being the monster. It was like she was willingly gaslighted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AMS is a fraud. I remember years ago she was at FZ's CNN show and admantly said Assad would be out in 6 months (this was years ago). I laughed.

I know a number of people who were on HFAC and they told me she's a brown-noser of the highest order and that HRC hates her.

You don't need hearsay to figure that out. Just read her emails. "Tell Hillary I am sorry if my article offended her. I am so, so sorry. I humbly request the opportunity to explain to her", "Tell Hillary that her appearance on TV was bold and excellent", etc, etc, etc. In the meantime, it was Clinton that was being the monster. It was like she was willingly gaslighted.

Well, her foreign policy credentials are irrelevant to her argument.

And her emails kind of make the point. I don't think it's a question of whether Slaughter is a good role model, I don't think she is. But whether her book (which is different from her article) objectively makes a valid point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AMS is a fraud. I remember years ago she was at FZ's CNN show and admantly said Assad would be out in 6 months (this was years ago). I laughed.

I know a number of people who were on HFAC and they told me she's a brown-noser of the highest order and that HRC hates her.

You don't need hearsay to figure that out. Just read her emails. "Tell Hillary I am sorry if my article offended her. I am so, so sorry. I humbly request the opportunity to explain to her", "Tell Hillary that her appearance on TV was bold and excellent", etc, etc, etc. In the meantime, it was Clinton that was being the monster. It was like she was willingly gaslighted.

Well, her foreign policy credentials are irrelevant to her argument.

And her emails kind of make the point. I don't think it's a question of whether Slaughter is a good role model, I don't think she is. But whether her book (which is different from her article) objectively makes a valid point.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AMS is a fraud. I remember years ago she was at FZ's CNN show and admantly said Assad would be out in 6 months (this was years ago). I laughed.

I know a number of people who were on HFAC and they told me she's a brown-noser of the highest order and that HRC hates her.

You don't need hearsay to figure that out. Just read her emails. "Tell Hillary I am sorry if my article offended her. I am so, so sorry. I humbly request the opportunity to explain to her", "Tell Hillary that her appearance on TV was bold and excellent", etc, etc, etc. In the meantime, it was Clinton that was being the monster. It was like she was willingly gaslighted.

Well, her foreign policy credentials are irrelevant to her argument.

And her emails kind of make the point. I don't think it's a question of whether Slaughter is a good role model, I don't think she is. But whether her book (which is different from her article) objectively makes a valid point.

Agree.

My take on her is that she finally ended up in a position outside her comfort zone which challenged her "privilege" (I hate to use that word, but can't think of another at the moment) and it so shocked her that it could be and was rough for working mothers that she was so shocked she felt compelled to write an article about it. Based on the notoriety from the article, she decided to write a book. That is about it. I don't really think anything more of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AMS is a fraud. I remember years ago she was at FZ's CNN show and admantly said Assad would be out in 6 months (this was years ago). I laughed.

I know a number of people who were on HFAC and they told me she's a brown-noser of the highest order and that HRC hates her.

You don't need hearsay to figure that out. Just read her emails. "Tell Hillary I am sorry if my article offended her. I am so, so sorry. I humbly request the opportunity to explain to her", "Tell Hillary that her appearance on TV was bold and excellent", etc, etc, etc. In the meantime, it was Clinton that was being the monster. It was like she was willingly gaslighted.

Well, her foreign policy credentials are irrelevant to her argument.

And her emails kind of make the point. I don't think it's a question of whether Slaughter is a good role model, I don't think she is. But whether her book (which is different from her article) objectively makes a valid point.

Agree.

My take on her is that she finally ended up in a position outside her comfort zone which challenged her "privilege" (I hate to use that word, but can't think of another at the moment) and it so shocked her that it could be and was rough for working mothers that she was so shocked she felt compelled to write an article about it. Based on the notoriety from the article, she decided to write a book. That is about it. I don't really think anything more of it.

Perhaps you should have given wome thought on thr proposals she made about changing workplaces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is a clear toss up whether Slaughter or Sandberg are more insufferable. Clearly Marissa Mayer wins whatever the prize is, but I really cannot stand Slaughter. Maybe worse than Sandberg for me actually.

Slaughter and Sandbeg have bery different messages. Franklu, I find Slaughter's we need to make changes to the workplace to make it more hospitable to women with children argument more compellimg than "lean in." Dont know about her personality but doesnt seem particularly relevamt to the underlying policy ussues.

Same here. Regardless of what you think of Sandberg and Slaughter personally or professionally, I prefer Slaughter's argument that it's not just individual women who have to change, but also workplace culture and employment laws. My beef with Sandberg was that her approach puts it all on women, in ways that are not necessarily even possible for women even a notch or two down the ladder from her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I truly loathed the Atlantic article. Maybe the title was an editor's fault and not hers, but it pissed me off. "I wanted to have a very high level job as the #2 to a very powerful international person in Washington DC while my family lived 4 hours away but I couldn't figure it out! We can't have it all!"

Um yes, we can, if we don't define having it all like you do. Same thing bothered me when the former CEO of Pepsi stepped down to raise her 3 kids and said the same thing. Again, "you can't make $200 million a year as the CEO of a huge, global corporation that is one of the most recognized brand in the world AND raise THREE kids the way you want? Women are stuck!"

It just seems so silly to define having it all as these jobs that are unattainable to 99.999999 percent of even the most highly educated professionals, whether they have kids or not!

Anyway, I downloaded a sample of the new book but didn't purchase it. I'm sure it's fine, it just didn't seem new or fresh to me. I do think that the our workplace culture needs to change and evolve, and I also think men and women as employees need to do more to change it. Don't want to blame the victim, but employers count on inertia - they count on people not having the guts to pull the trigger and find something new or ask for a different arrangement. When my job became unreasonable, I found a better one. It didn't happen overnight, but within a year, I had a job that let me manage my own schedule, work from home regularly (2-3 days a week) and paid me 20% more. And when I left, I said it was because of the inflexible culture. But so many people stay year after year and don't ask for change or make a move. Or just say, "I get great performance reviews, and I know you value me, I need some more flexibility." I know it's not as easy as 1-2-3 but I do think we need to stand up and advocate.

I also hate how much of a black box it is to find out about a company's culture. I know that companies have their PR talking points and you can come in and find it's BS. That sucks and I wish there were more transparency.

Agree with all this, and am in the process of finding a more flexible job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I am really sick of people bashing both Sheryl Sandberg and Anne-Marie Slaughter. They aren't speaking for all women. Men write books about business leadership all the time, or about being a world champion athlete.

The question both of these women ask is how the brightest, most talented, most fortunate women can achieve their dreams. These women were not just smart or rich, they were valedictorians at places like Harvard.

No one doubts that a man like this could go be CEO, run a white shoe law firm, be president even and still have a family, even if not being as involved day to day. But could a woman do this? Could *any* woman? This is a valid question even if it doesn't relate exactly to the vast majority of women's experiences. I'm not sure they give the best possible advice, but to claim it's not a conversation worth having is really demeaning to women. When we start having a conversation about how *anyone* can do this then we've won. But no one is having that conversation.

You already made their critics' main point so I'm not sure what you are ranting about. Yes a man can be a CEO and have kids. Know why? Because 9/10 he'd have a SAHM. There are still only 24 hrs in a day though so if he's spending 10+ doing work things, how much time is he really spending with his family? No one cares about that because that's still normal to us. A woman could theoretically do the same thing with a SAHH. Two problems with that: SAHHs are less common than SAHMs, even now, and women tend to want to be more involved with their kids than the demands of a CEO role would allow.

There are only so many hours in a day. Everything comes with an opportunity cost. They're complaining about something that cannot be fixed. No you can't have an extremely demanding, high profile government job in a city 4 hrs away from where your family lives and still be an involved parent. Man or woman, it doesn't matter. The very idea is absurd.

But the entitlement!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You already made their critics' main point so I'm not sure what you are ranting about. Yes a man can be a CEO and have kids. Know why? Because 9/10 he'd have a SAHM. There are still only 24 hrs in a day though so if he's spending 10+ doing work things, how much time is he really spending with his family? No one cares about that because that's still normal to us. A woman could theoretically do the same thing with a SAHH. Two problems with that: SAHHs are less common than SAHMs, even now, and women tend to want to be more involved with their kids than the demands of a CEO role would allow.

There are only so many hours in a day. Everything comes with an opportunity cost. They're complaining about something that cannot be fixed. No you can't have an extremely demanding, high profile government job in a city 4 hrs away from where your family lives and still be an involved parent. Man or woman, it doesn't matter. The very idea is absurd.

You might want to read Slaughter's book instead of her article. She addresses these criticisms. maybe not as well as you'd like, but she does.

How can she address them when there's no way that would ever work out? I agree iwth the PP that you can't live in another city from your children, have an extremely demanding job on top of that, and still consider yourself a hands on mother. Life doesn't stop for them just because you moved to another city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You already made their critics' main point so I'm not sure what you are ranting about. Yes a man can be a CEO and have kids. Know why? Because 9/10 he'd have a SAHM. There are still only 24 hrs in a day though so if he's spending 10+ doing work things, how much time is he really spending with his family? No one cares about that because that's still normal to us. A woman could theoretically do the same thing with a SAHH. Two problems with that: SAHHs are less common than SAHMs, even now, and women tend to want to be more involved with their kids than the demands of a CEO role would allow.

There are only so many hours in a day. Everything comes with an opportunity cost. They're complaining about something that cannot be fixed. No you can't have an extremely demanding, high profile government job in a city 4 hrs away from where your family lives and still be an involved parent. Man or woman, it doesn't matter. The very idea is absurd.

You might want to read Slaughter's book instead of her article. She addresses these criticisms. maybe not as well as you'd like, but she does.

How can she address them when there's no way that would ever work out? I agree iwth the PP that you can't live in another city from your children, have an extremely demanding job on top of that, and still consider yourself a hands on mother. Life doesn't stop for them just because you moved to another city.

That's not what her book is about. She realizes everything you said, and wrote a book about something different (albeit related).