In Anne-Marie Slaughter’s essay “Why Women Still Can’t Have It all” Slaughter explains how she wants to incorporate her success and family to have a balanced life. Slaughter is the president and CEO of the New American Foundation, “a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institute, and has taught at Princeton University and Harvard Law School and worked as director of policy planning for the U.S. State Department. Slaughter’s concern is not being a supportive mother to her children because of working policies. Her working policies require her to work for long periods of time while juggling reports, and writing commentaries on drafts, leaving little room to spend time with her family. I agree that working in a high position job can have a negative
…show more content…
She refers to the “highly educated, well off women who are privileged enough to have choices in the first place.” What Slaughter suggests from this quote is that women have the power to voice their opinions about not being comfortable with the time frames they work, and the type of job that they are doing. Moreover, she mentions that some women face daily struggles with jobs such as not being able to find a stable job, not being able to find an affordable day care center for their children, and having work schedules that do not correlate with school schedules. Her point in mentioning these struggles are that most women aren’t concerned about having it all while facing current issues in their lives, but being content with what they already have. Sandburg on the other hand doesn’t specify as to what race, or class she is referring to. Sandburg overlooks the deeper problem that not all women are viewed as being great candidates for high position jobs because of discrimination in race, and gender. Unfortunately, we are still living in a society where different races think that they are more equipped for certain job positions than other races and that some jobs aren’t made for a male or female. Sandburg never mentions race and makes one wonder whether she was only referring to women who are like her- white women. Bell …show more content…
In fact, “increased flexibility correlates positively with job engagement, job satisfaction, employee retention, and employee health.” When increased flexibility is incorporated in work both men and women are more likely to remain at their jobs. When men and women leave their jobs wherever or whoever they work for may lose intelligent and effective people who are beneficial. This proves Sandburg wrong because she says that if women thrive to be at the top, life will be better for them, but life has become more difficult. Moreover, not only are women having problems balancing their life and work, but men are now in the same position. Sandburg made the mistake by placing too much emphasis on women working at the top would result in a happy life. I disagree with Sandburg because women have chosen to not work at the top and yet most are happy. Not all women want to work at the top because of the responsibilities that come along with it and men have come to that same realization. I also think that Sandburg implied that women should completely take over in high positions. If this were to occur it would defeat the whole purpose of fighting for equality
She refers to the “highly educated, well off women who are privileged enough to have choices in the first place.” What Slaughter suggests from this quote is that women have the power to voice their opinions about not being comfortable with the time frames they work, and the type of job that they are doing. Moreover, she mentions that some women face daily struggles with jobs such as not being able to find a stable job, not being able to find an affordable day care center for their children, and having work schedules that do not correlate with school schedules. Her point in mentioning these struggles are that most women aren’t concerned about having it all while facing current issues in their lives, but being content with what they already have. Sandburg on the other hand doesn’t specify as to what race, or class she is referring to. Sandburg overlooks the deeper problem that not all women are viewed as being great candidates for high position jobs because of discrimination in race, and gender. Unfortunately, we are still living in a society where different races think that they are more equipped for certain job positions than other races and that some jobs aren’t made for a male or female. Sandburg never mentions race and makes one wonder whether she was only referring to women who are like her- white women. Bell …show more content…
In fact, “increased flexibility correlates positively with job engagement, job satisfaction, employee retention, and employee health.” When increased flexibility is incorporated in work both men and women are more likely to remain at their jobs. When men and women leave their jobs wherever or whoever they work for may lose intelligent and effective people who are beneficial. This proves Sandburg wrong because she says that if women thrive to be at the top, life will be better for them, but life has become more difficult. Moreover, not only are women having problems balancing their life and work, but men are now in the same position. Sandburg made the mistake by placing too much emphasis on women working at the top would result in a happy life. I disagree with Sandburg because women have chosen to not work at the top and yet most are happy. Not all women want to work at the top because of the responsibilities that come along with it and men have come to that same realization. I also think that Sandburg implied that women should completely take over in high positions. If this were to occur it would defeat the whole purpose of fighting for equality