The Harvard Crimson‘s magazine, FM, published a fascinating article, “Can Harvard Women Have It All?,” applying the question posed by Ann-Marie Slaughter in her 2012 Atlantic article to Harvard Women specifically. Both Slaughter’s veritable tome and FM‘s piece deserve to be read in full.

Below are a few things I found interesting about the Crimson article. Most are gut-level reactions and unresolved questions, so I would love to hear responses from other HPR writers and readers in the comments.

1. Outside the Ivy Gates

The point towards the start of the article about gender dynamics at Harvard not necessarily mapping onto gender dynamics outside the College reminds me of the point/criticism in Slaughter’s article about the challenges and environments faced by “elite” women like Slaughter being different from those experienced by most women. Exploring the differences there would be really interesting. Few would deny that the challenges of both groups are real, but we (at least I) haven’t seen many attempts to address their differences in depth, with most of this analysis coming from uber-educated people who understandably reflect on their own environment.

2. Who Is A Feminist?

It’s interesting to hear the comments from some of the current students to the effect that they don’t think gender has been a problem for them, and that they think women need to “try harder.” If a guy said that, I feel like we would all dismiss him, but do we have to entertain the thought more seriously when it comes from a woman? Are women who think that way anti-feminists or just different types of feminists? Are they good or bad for “the cause”?

3. Women in ________

The growing number of “Women in _____” groups: good or bad? My instinct is to say that there are genuinely unique challenges faced by women within industries/fields, and it makes sense to develop groups to specifically address those challenges. “Women in ____” groups also potentially serve as a sort of pseudo-affirmative action/AA alternative. They’re not just forming a supportive community and talking about challenges, they’re also providing women with skills and connections so that they’re more competitive in their field. Basically, they work to make the old “there are no qualified women candidates” argument even more patently and apparently false than it already is. I can also see the argument,though, that “Women in _____” groups reinforce differences, and (perhaps more importantly) leave men out of the conversation, thus allowing them to remain ignorant of the issues/solutions that get talked about in those groups. Women’s groups can do all the “awareness raising” they want, but ultimately men who are disinclined to care are going to self-select out of those conversations. If those conversations are going on within the groups that those men are a part of, they can’t do that. So I can see this going both ways.

Those are some of my thoughts. What are yours?

Stephanie Schriock knows what she’s doing. She stands at the helm of the pro-choice Democratic women’s political action committee, EMILY’s List, as Washington gets set to welcome a historic number of women into its fold. EMILY’s List has grown substantially in size and influence in the last several years, and hearing their president’s measured but strong passion demonstrates why.

A Conversation with Stephanie Schriock

In many ways, 2012 has been the year of the woman. Whether it was the media frenzy surrounding Yahoo CEO Marissa Meyer’s pregnancy, Todd Akin’s comments about legitimate rape, or Anne-Marie Slaughter’s widely-read analysis on women in the workplace today, women and women’s issues have been on the cover of every magazine and a focus on every television channel. But for Stephanie Schriock, the narrative dates to January 2011 in the health care arena, “when the Republicans in the House went after the health care bill right off the bat.” Shriock views the bill, now a law, as a significant step for women, because for the first time being a woman will not be a “pre-existing condition.” Though the attempted “roll back of the clock” on women’s rights began in the health care arena, it evolved into to an attack on reproductive rights, Planned Parenthood, and the definition of rape. In combination, these events garnered much interest in women and women’s issues across the country, making the 2012 elections something of a tipping point.

For Schriock, however, the role of women’s issues was not the only important change for women in the 2012 election. She argues that the growth of organizations such as her own, that sought to ensure that women were positioned to run for office, matters just as much. “Just by force of numbers,” she says, “we are starting are to move on the dial in the right direction.” And while in the past, organizations such as EMILY’s List have focused on ensuring the appeal of candidates to their constituents, in 2012, they worked equally hard, if not harder, to turn out the female vote in favor of pro-choice Democratic candidates. EMILY’s List’s “Women Vote” program is “completely devoted to understanding the minds and positions of women voters across the country.” This year, they had the largest “Women Vote” program in the history of the organization, which, according to Schriock, focused on highlighting what the Republicans were doing (which she wittily adds, “women voters do not like”). The focus on empathy – emphasizing an understanding of what women’s day-to-day lives were like, with work, children and caring for their parents – drove one of the largest gender gaps in a presidential election that this country has ever seen.

The intense focus of Democratic media outlets and organizations on portraying Republicans as misogynistic in order to energize voters has no doubt created bitterness on both sides of the aisle. Schriock, however, doubts that this will prevent bipartisan action, arguing what you’re really going to see from these newly elected women are folks who want to roll their sleeves up and get something done. They’re going to pull people together to deal with the major problems this country is facing, and I think you’re going to start seeing a bit of a tone change in how we address these issues.” The change of tone in Washington though will only be the first step: “When there is truly an equal number of women sitting at the decision-making table in Congress, is when we’re going to get policy that truly represents the communities we live in.” The potential impact on changing the tone of hyperpolarization is encouraging; Schriock asserts that women in politics have already begun to cross the aisles on issues concerning family life.

Schriock says that she is “thrilled but horrified,” when presented with a comparison of the United States and other countries in terms of female leadership. Even with the historic number of women elected this year, the United States lags behind other countries in terms of political gender parity. Do organizations like EMILY’s List play a role in other countries? For Schriock and her team, setting a precedent of having female political leaders starts at home: “The best thing that we can do for the international community is show leadership in the United States. When we elect good, strong, particularly pro-choice Democratic women to Congress, we are more open as a country to learning what’s happening to women and girls around the world.” She encourages donors who support charitable women’s causes around the world to look to their own country, urging them to help bolster America’s own situation so that they can set a better global example.

Named one of TIME magazine’s Top-40-Under-40, Stephanie Schriock can teach the average college-going young woman a great deal. As millennial women become both emboldened and vitalized by the increased talk of women in politics in the United States, Schriock offers an important, enduring piece of advice: Get involved. Get involved. Get involved. Regardless of where young women work – in government, health care or any form of public service – the networks that they build “open doors,” giving young women the power to affect decision-making. Schriock herself began building her networks as a college student in Minnesota where she ran for student Senate. To her, being involved in university governance is “an amazing stepping stone for running for office at either the state or federal level.”

The women at EMILY’s List have time for one deep breath before the plunge into preparations for 2016. Schriock believes that a number of women (not just Hilary Clinton) will be primed and well-placed to run for president whether its in 2016, 2020 or 2024. A woman in the White House would mean that young American girls across the country would soon be able to open their eyes to the political possibilities that await them. Her hopes for the future of women in political leadership have made Stephanie Schriock cautious about the ‘Year of Woman.’ To her and her colleagues at EMILY’s List, every year should be a year in which women and women’s issues are given their due attention.

Seven HPR writers discuss and critique Anne-Marie Slaughter’s article, “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All”

“Women can’t have it all.” “It’s impossible to have both a good family relationship, watch your children grow and be at the top of your career.” “We’re not hindered by men, just by our motherly instincts.” Pretty straight-forward. Anne-Marie Slaughter finally dared to speak the truth, and say what women around the world were too afraid to say.

And yet, the more I try to be rational and accepting of the simple facts, the less I like this idea. I’m bothered by the “women can’t have it all” notion because our “all” emphasizes a balance between the role of mother and the role of working woman. Whose priority is that? Because, frankly speaking, it isn’t mine.

Women of past generations have been trying to fit the perfect woman into this specific square – a stereotypical representation of our gender that will be free from the societal restraint, expertly balancing raising a family, a job and a perfect life. But didn’t they just create another unattainable standard for women? Just another stereotype? And who said that’s the standard we should aspire to, anyway? I am not speaking on behalf of all women, not even on behalf of the majority. But why must women always sacrifice their careers? Because we have motherly instincts? Or because this is how we were raised? Our lives go through a cycle: grow up, go to school, marry and have children. It seems like we are just checking things off an outdated list.

Slaughter makes a great point, but she represents another generation of women, other ideals. To paraphrase a friend of mine, perhaps the time has come to first find our role as individuals and human beings in society, and let gender roles and government policies come after.

Anne-Marie Slaughter is long—very long—on the problems facing upwardly mobile female professionals. Rightfully so. But she is short—very short—on solutions to these problems. Slaughter thinks we need more female politicians and leaders, tout court. She offers nothing more specific. No explicit policies.  Slaughter’s proposal, I think, comes off as rather empty.

Meanwhile, she completely ignores measures that have worked relatively well to improve the lot of women. Take The Global Gender Gap Report 2011 from the World Economic Forum. Top-ranking places like Scandinavia and Western Europe crush America, which ranks 17th for gender parity. Let’s compare some examples: The US has no federal or state laws mandating maternity leave for employers, and no national or state program for paternity leave. Norway (ranked 2nd), on the other hand, requires a total of 9 weeks maternity leave, with 100% of wages paid, and offers 12 weeks, 100%-paid paternity leave. It’s strikingly obvious which country makes it easier to be an upwardly mobile woman with a family.

“We may need to put a woman in the White House,” Slaughter claims, “before we are able to change the conditions of the women working at Walmart.” Yet Norway has had only one female head of state. Iceland (ranked 1st) just elected its first. Sweden (4th) has had zero. Now, these countries are not quite perfect when it comes to gender parity or other issues, but they certainly illustrate concrete steps in the right direction–none of which Slaughter suggests.

I dislike the implication of her proposal: Men simply cannot help solve these problems—only leaders of the female gender can. In truth, putting in place good policy is happily gender neutral.

As women gain more and more equality in the workplace and at home, the question of whether they can truly “have it all” naturally arises. The short answer is no; women can not “have it all” in the sense that they want. No person has the time to be the perfect mother/homemaker while also being in a high-powered, executive-level job.

The longer answer is that no one, regardless of gender, can have it all. Men in the same high powered positions do not have the “perfect” home lives either. It is simply not possible to work a highly demanding job, cook dinner every night, and make it to every dance recital and baseball game. The difference is that those high powered men are satisfied with this compromise. They don’t mind working late some days and missing a game or two or having to pick up their own dinner on the way home while the babysitter feeds the kids. They can still have a great relationship with their kids and be a loving and present father without being at home every night of the week.

Women can have this too, but it’s not the “having it all” that they really want. In order to get the jobs and equality women hope for, they need to start accepting this reality: working a demanding job means seeing your children less. Like most things in life, it’s about finding a balance. For women that may mean feeling as though they are not seeing their children or working enough, but it is a compromise that has to be made.

The question is not “Can women have it all?” Of course a woman “can” have a successful career and family. There will always be anomalies like Hilary Clinton, Sheryl Samberg, etc. A woman can have it all, given that she prioritizes, makes personal sacrifices, and is up for an exhausting, nonstop juggling act.

A better question is “Do women have it all?” In reality, the vast majority of women do not. The playing field is not level. Gender disparities are not due to women having a lack of ambition, talent, or leadership skills. Sure, maybe women stay at home more because it’s natural. However, it still does not account for the fact that a woman who has a top-tier career and is a successful mom is an anomaly.

All successful young women have three options: 1) Throw herself into a career 2) Fulfill her womanly duties 3) Do both. A very real consequence of option three is failing completely; therefore, many women feel they must choose option one or option two. A young man, however, is never faced with this fork in the road. There remains the expectation for a woman to care for her family and home. As long as this exists, men will outperform women. It is challenging enough for a man to attain an illustrious career. To have it all, a woman has to do exactly what a man is doing, and then also care for a family.

If nothing changes, most women of my generation will not have it all—at least, not in the way my male peers will. The most important thing that can come from this discourse is the acknowledgement that the leaky pipeline to the top has to do with societal expectations and institutional sexism. Until we can figure out a way to level the playing field, women of my generation need women ahead of us to be mentors, champions, and encouragers. Women at the top must fight institutional sexism and pull more women to the top.

The question, when asking if women can “have it all”, is not about women’s ability to succeed but about the societal and cultural barriers to that success. Women have surpassed men in gaining bachelor’s and advanced degrees, and there are examples (though at times few in number) of successful women and mothers in the upper tiers of all fields, ranging from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Harvard President Drew Faust. Nowadays, the hurdles to female success are more cultural and therefore harder to dismantle than the legal and blatantly discriminatory barriers to work women faced just decades ago. These modern obstacles include institutional biases of more time spent in the office equating success; perceptions of motherhood as a hindrance to career devotion and accomplishment; and the internal idea women hold that there remains a binary choice between having a family or having a career.

Women will never be treated exactly as men are—men will never have to take maternity leave due to pregnancy, for example—yet that does not mean that women cannot be justly treated and respected in the workplace. As we continue to identify and address such slippery cultural barriers to greater female success, women will be able to reach their potential to “have it all.”

I have seen women succeed professionally, yet at the same time I have seen the work such efforts still require: in the first meeting I attended for a publication, I was one of only two women sitting around a conference table full of men. Though my six-year history of all-girls education made me feel greatly out of place, I was comforted by seeing the only other woman in the room, the section editor, sitting at the head of the table.

Ann-Marie Slaughter’s article, “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” targets a highly privileged demographic. The people she discusses are, as described, “highly educated, well-off women who are privileged enough to have choices in the first place.” These women have everything in grasp – the dream job and fairytale family – yet are denied the time and societal support to fully reap their benefits.

While it is important to address how these women often face more complex hurdles in achieving work/life balance than their male counterparts, the call to afford these women the ability to “have it all” is not a universally appealing campaign if it is framed to mainly benefit this small and privileged demographic, or even to benefit women alone. Slaughter would make a much more compelling case for change if she premised her article primarily around what society loses when women step back, rather than what these women lose out on when life imbalances force them to choose between family and career.

Hard work and family values are fundamental American credo. However, the hurdles working women face when trying to achieve work/life balance make fulfilling these tenets a zero-sum game. Society loses out when our work and family structures undermine our own philosophies.

Gender disparities in work/life balance have practical ramifications. The women in Slaughter’s piece are uniquely equipped to contribute to our society in extraordinary ways. Yet, when they are forced to decide between work and family because our systems aren’t conducive to balancing the two, the greatest problem is not that they can’t have it all. The greatest problem is that they can’t give it all.

Women’s equity is not just a means to better work/life balance for elite women. It’s a means to stronger families and a stronger society — a cause everyone can fight for.

Anne-Marie Slaughter’s article paints a bleak portrait of the situation facing women trying to “have it all.” This is frustrating for a variety of reasons: both because it seems unjust, and because everything we know about leadership and group decision-making indicates that diversity of perspectives increases productivity, and that diverse social and work environments increase happiness and fulfillment.

On the bright side, we have a chance to fix it. I don’t use “we” here to mean women specifically (I’m a man) or society generally, but rather our generation. A striking passage in Slaughter’s article discusses the sense of being robbed that women of her generation feel when they realize that the 50-50 graduating classes of their colleges and graduate schools have not translated to a 50-50 breakdown at the top of their fields a few decades later.

Whereas their generation understandably assumed that if higher education was equal that the rest would follow, we know better. Without getting too caught up in the 50-50 breakdown that Slaughter implies is the end goal (it’s very possible that more women will always gravitate towards care-giving than men, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing), it is well within our power to move the needle, and to make sure we and our peers feel less constrained by the system and more able to choose the ideal personal path.

Slaughter has some great practical suggestions late in her article for steps that can be taken to change social norms and improve the family-work cultural dynamic. Lots of these are being implemented already, but it will realistically be up to those of us graduating and entering the workforce in the next few years to execute them, propose new ideas, and demand that things like flexibility enhancing technology, novel work schedule arrangements, and the general work/family balance be up for discussion. It shouldn’t be controversial to suggest that our society is arranged in a way that might prevent women (or anyone else) from “having it all.” That’s not defeatist or bitter—it’s a call to action. By normalizing these types of discussions, people our age can start to heed that call.

In an election year focused on resuscitating the struggling economy, few could have predicted the central role feminism is playing in political debates. Beginning in early February with the controversy surrounding the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate, the Democratic Party has made overtures to women and aligned itself with traditionally feminist viewpoints.

However, the spillover from the contraceptive debate extends beyond mere political strategy. As Caroline Light, Director of Studies for Women and Gender Studies at Harvard, told the HPR, “recently many people who may not have initially identified as feminists have become politicized by the character of recent public arguments on women’s sexuality and health.”

But the media and public’s recent focus does not herald a new feminism. Ultimately, the individuals that Light argues have become politicized are simply frustrated by the birth control debate. While this will temporarily strengthen the Democratic base, any electoral advantage and long-term effects are limited. Read More…

Four years ago, Barack Obama was the epitome of “cool” as far as politics were concerned, and his primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, was “politics as usual.” From the mystical “O” logo to a hope poster which played with sharp contrasts to capture one’s attention – and the youth vote, Barack Obama’s nonchalant professionalism came across as wonderfully 21st Century. Clinton, on the other hand, was unable to mobilize Americans the same way. An Obama presidency was something young Americans looked forward to.

But then Obama actually became president, plopping on the laurels of bureaucracy, and though he’s still the same Obama, the spark is gone. The excitement of possibility no longer exists, because what was then possible now is already a reality.

Obama won. Turns out he’s just another president.

But how, then, is Hillary Clinton suddenly cool?

It’s the same Clinton personality that many abhorred four years ago. Cold? Check. Calculating? Check. A woman growing older in public? Some Republicans definitely made that clear. Gendered epithets? Those, too, played an unfortunately large role.

But now, the same Hillary is a meme – in the form of the glorious but short-lived Tumblr TextsFromHillary. Her seemingly distant, disconnected, indifferent persona – shattered by a tear in ’08 – is now what makes her cool. Clinton texts. On a smartphone. Wearing shades indoors. She snaps back at a variety of celebrities, showing her seemingly effortless firm handle on global diplomacy. There’s Hillary Clinton, “running the world”, and she makes it look easy.

The TextsFromHillary Clinton is a woman who has climbed to where she is through hard work, and knows that she is good at what she does. The kicker is that the public knows it too. Hillary Clinton comes off as cool, as opposed to cold, because Tumblr users see her as a ridiculously accomplished woman who has earned the right to show pretenders their place – this shown by the fact that the response to the site was so large, with thousands of Twitter and Facebook followers on top of the Tumblr reaction.

Clinton in Tumblr form represents a powerful femininity which transcends unequal treatment. When a joke comes in about her sartorial style – in this case, her scrunchie – it is her very own submission to the site. The Tumblr Clinton is able to make fun of John Boehner’s tears, and deflect Sarah Palin’s desires to be seen as an equal in accomplishment. This version of Clinton is comfortable in her skin, and a great example for women (and men) around the nation for that reason. Once you get to the point where you are on a first name basis with foreign leaders, you are actually totally allowed to wear sunglasses on a plane. And even wear a scrunchie.

Hillary Clinton, in essence, has won. Her newfound viral meme fame – another fifteen minutes to tack on to her well-earned decades – demonstrates that her story can be retold, her narrative reframed – and confirms the view that Clinton is still one of the “most famous but least known” figures in America.

In the last ten years, Afghanistan has undergone significant change in its international position, domestic society and security. Amidst this political turmoil, Afghan women have often been caught in the crossfire. Today, the Karzai government hopes to reconcile with the Taliban – remembered for the hostility of its government’s policies toward women. At this pivotal moment in Afghanistan’s history, one wonders whether President Karzai’s policies have done enough to protect and restore the rights of women that have been steadily eroded over the last twenty years, and whether or not they will be enough to withstand the integration of the Taliban.

How far has the Karzai Administration come?

To understand the Afghan government’s hopes for the reconciliation movement, it is first critical to understand the challenges that Afghan women have faced. The Taliban’s war on women extended far and wide. With no constitution or rule of law, municipal authorities used the Taliban’s interpretation of Shari’a law. Severe restrictions on movement, dress and work were in place: women were forced to wear the burqa, were not allowed to wear high-heeled shoes or to be seen in public without a male blood relative and were largely prohibited from working. A woman was expected to be a homemaker that was “neither seen nor heard.” Since women were not allowed out in public, women’s physical and mental health suffered tremendously under the Taliban. With no judicial system but their own, the Taliban “terrorized the city of Kabul by publicly punishing alleged wrongdoers in the Kabul sports stadium and requiring public attendance at the floggings, shootings, hangings, beheadings, and amputations,” says Amnesty International.

President Hamid Karzai’s rise to power in 2001 brought hope to Afghanistan. Karzai was instrumental in reforming the Afghan state and in passing the 2003 Afghan Constitution. On his second Inauguration Day in 2009, Karzai promised to rid the country of corruption and create a safe environment for each Afghan. However, Karzai’s rhetoric is far from the reality of the situation in Afghanistan. Though women have returned to public life and NGOs have been invaluable in providing women with support, Karzai has failed on protecting women’s rights on several fronts. For example, Karzai approved a law in 2009 that, according to the UN, sanctioned marital rape. In March 2009, he approved the Shi’a Personal Status Law, which denied Shiite women numerous rights, including child custody and freedom of movement. Two convicted gang rapists were even granted presidential pardons. Conclusively, Karzai has been unable to resist pressures from radicals within the country, making the possibility of reconciliation even more concerning for the future of women’s rights in Afghanistan. Read More…

One of the many trends in this midterm election cycle, recognized and promoted by those whose job it is to recognize and promote trends, is that 2010 appears to be the “Year of the Woman.”  Sharron Angle won her primary for the Nevada Senate race.  Nikki Haley, with headline-making help from Sarah Palin, won her runoff primary for South Carolina Governor Tuesday.  Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman won primaries in CA, the former for Senate and the latter for governor.  All are women.

All are also Republicans, which is perhaps the greater surprise.

The narrative falls apart when you look at actual numbers, but regardless, the success of GOP women in headline-topping races has motivated some interesting commentary on feminism.
Read More…