How can we stabilize the work/life balance for women in today’s climate?

In American culture today, the amount of women at the top of industry food chains is low, and dwindling at that. While there are multiple sides to the conversation about women and their roles in the workplace, the theme of domesticity and its connection to womanhood unites the arguments. This discussion is between several different vantage points, debating what actions women should take, even though each author is arguing for what they believe is equality. By combining these voices, it shapes the conversation on the fragile balance between work and life with which women are forced to deal. Thus, with this argument of work life balance, the reader can see the views of domesticity and femininity that are held by those in the top of the industry food chains, whether it be retribution or reclamation.

We Can Do It!

In Sheryl Sandberg’s TED Talk “Why We Have Too Few Women Leaders,” there’s a lot of focus on the camaraderie of women. Sandberg effectively encourages women to stay fighting the good fight by planting the seed in her audience members’ mind that one day that half of the C-level positions will be held by females. Sandberg’s ideas are exuberantly optimistic, evoking a call to action, and her tactics are skillfully smart; with her authority of a women at the top of the food chain, the universal labors of motherhood, and a smattering of jarring statistics, she convinces her audience with ease that the days of domesticity are in the past! You! Me! We as women can, in fact, have it all! But what exactly is “it all?” With Sandberg’s argument, having it all doesn’t seem much of anything like balance, but instead working oneself to exhaustion. She says: “Keep your foot on the gas pedal, until the very day you need to leave to take a break for a child.” Success seems like it would include happiness and peace of mind, but Sandberg’s vision seems like there would be little balance between her home and work life. Another thing that Sandberg assumes is that if women are to be successful, they have to really want it. She seems to disregard women who actually do want to stay with their families, looking down on them as if she’s superior because she made the hard decision of becoming the breadwinner. Sandberg also seems to claim that, yes the obstacles are hard, but with a can-do attitude, it’s possible. Sandberg comes from an elitist position, in which she, a wealthy white woman, attended a prestigious college. She’s partially blind to institutionalized racism and classism. This leaves a hole in her argument, and renders it far less effective. Sandberg’s idea of having it all, quite frankly, seems exhausting; and others felt the same as well.

Sit Back, Relax!

Rosa Brooks aggressively claims in her Washington Post article that she “hate[s] Sheryl Sandberg.” Recline! Don’t ‘Lean In,’ she cries to women, and let your natural, domestic, and more informal side take control. Brooks’ op-ed vouches for those who enjoy the slower, less gregarious side of life. Brooks’ argument is more than just allowing space for the introverts of the world, it’s an argument that women shouldn’t have to lean in. Women deserve a spot at the table without having to elbow their way in. She recalls her days of grueling work, and reflects that: “If we truly want gender equality, we need to challenge the assumption that more is always better.” After trying to lean in, Brooks effectively ruined her life. She is making a safe space for the introverts and homebodies of the world in her argument. However, her argument that women should recline is less than empowering. She is feeding into the idea that women want to be domestic. While this may be true for Brooks and other women like her, it’s not true for all. Some women want to be CEO’s, and not be tethered down by their child’s PTA. Brooks doesn’t take this into much consideration as she makes her argument, effectively playing into a the stereotype that women are the caretakers, and thus shaming women who don’t crave the maternal lifestyle.

Sisters Puttin’ in (Too Much) Work

Anne-Marie Slaughter’s piece for the Atlantic is in the same vein as what Rosa Brooks claims. Slaughter also talks about Sheryl Sandberg, and how dangerous it is to ‘lean in.’ A high position women herself, Slaughter actively works to normalize her own domesticity. In a perfect world, she claims, women can have it all: the career of their dreams and a happy family life. But the structure of America’s economy and society are failing women. She is arguing that if we change the structure, we can change the function. Slaughter had the personal experience that gives her a very high authority in her argument. She’s even self aware, recognizing her privilege and speaking to the working women who don’t have the luxury of setting their own schedule while they work as the dean of the Princeton law school. Her pathos is strong, using anecdotes that display the universal maternal instincts in women. Slaughter is on the side of reclamation, stating that a woman’s domesticity should be so normalized that every single American’s work life should model that of a working mother. According to Slaughter, only when there are 100% of women at the top is when there is equality, because when women are in charge, they keep everyone in mind, not just themselves. However, her views can be seen as problematic. She advocates that femininity should be respected as much as masculinity, however that implies that there are inherently feminine and masculine traits and concepts. Her argument leaves no room for those who identify as transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming. Femininity, in Slaughter’s eyes, is universally understood- the natural way for a woman to be. Yet, readers are forced to wonder, exactly what is the femininity that she says they should reclaim?

… But Don’t Women Already Have It All?

Richard Dorment has another take on this subject. In this controversy, his Esquire article is full of contradictions. As a man, Dorment has objectively less of a stake to claim in this argument, which allows for a different perspective on this part. He argues that women already have it all; compared to the past tropes, women have progressed leaps and bounds, and this shift has caused men to take the fall for women. He cites statistics that state men are severely more stressed with their work/life balance, and that men tend to spend several more hours a week at the workplace. Dorment’s tone is a bit preachy to his female readers- concerning women’s tendency to be less likely to ask for flexibility, he claims they can either fight for it or not, “but don’t complain that you never had a choice.” This is the exact opposite of what people like Rosa Brooks think. Dorment believes women should fight hard for their opportunities, Brooks says that fighting shouldn’t be required. It’s important to note that Dorment’s tone speaks as if sexism is a thing of the past, which is why his ethos is this situation is important to take a look at. Dorment is a man, writing to women, explaining to them how lucky they are to have what they have and saying they shouldn’t complain when they have to fight for flexibility. This severely hurts his authority with female readers, because he himself has never been a part of the female experience. One thing he does well is create a rapport with the reader through personal anecdotes, however he uses these as support for his arguments, when clearly his experience is not universal. Dorment is on the side of retribution, though not in the same way as Sheryl Sandberg. He’s less on the side of girl power, and more of an advocate for equalism. In his mind, men are the victims. This playing of the victim and passively shaming women for being too successful is a microaggression that leans towards sexism. Dorment’s argument, while well supported, has hints of bigotry sprinkled throughout it.

All in All…

Different writers have different size stakes to claim in the argument, and a certain deserved amplification of their voice. It’s hard to decide what exactly equality is in today’s society, and what solution will work the best in it. Each author has their point of view, followed by varied authority, effectivity, and even downfalls. So the question still remains: reclamation or retribution? There’s only one way to find out- try.

Sources:

Brooks, Rosa. “Recline, don’t ‘Lean In’ (Why I hate Sheryl Sandberg).” The Washington Post. 25 Feb. 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/02/25/recline-dont-lean-in-why-i-hate-sheryl-sandberg/?utm_term=.4491d5cf8f1c. Accessed 25 March 2019.

Dorment, Richard. “Why Men Still Can’t Have It All.” Esquire. 28 May 2013. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/a22764/why-men-still-cant-have-it-all-0613/. Accessed 25 March 2019.

Sandberg, Sheryl. “Why we have too few women leaders.” TED. Dec. 2010. https://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders.

Slaughter, Anne-Marie. “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All.” The Atlantic. July/Aug. 2012. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/. Accessed 25 March 2019.