I have no idea where you got any of those ideas from this post or these comments.

Some here have expressed exasperation with Slaugher’s very ambitious definition of “having it all,” a problematic concept in many respects, but mostly because it’s only applied to women. Nobody here resents Slaughter’s work; most of us resent articles about “having it all” that are only about women’s lives & never about men’s lives.

As I said earlier: when The Atlantic starts publishing articles with men standing next to the babies they’re allegedly neglecting by remaining in the paid workforce, then I’ll lay off.

PS What’s wrong with nude hose?

I still agree with this sentiment, because those images are how both gay rights and present-day feminism are approached, pointing toward God, family and patriotism. This was a deliberate turn in the 90s, as deliberate as the right-wing turn of the Democratic Party and neo-liberalism, generally.

Sure, nuances exist in longer arguments, but those are the top notes that stick — and, for me personally, they still stink.

And her position is still that of privilege, merely because she doesn’t work for an hourly wage. Is is that hard to see that for most of the women who have jobs, a flexible schedule often means losing benefits and pay, due to that flexibility not being paid for by the boss? That, and jobs that need for you to Be There when you’re there will never allow that flexibiity?

I’ll second, third, fourth two other comments: 1) where are the men (since she’s drawing from personal experience, what obstacles — if any — did her husband face as the primary caregiver while she was in DC? Did it alter his standing in his department?) and 2) can we stop talking about work-life balance as though it’s only a mothers thing? It needs to include everyone, those actively parenting, those without kids, those empty-nesters, etc. Flexible schedules are a nice goal, but let’s be honest: a) they’re only possible in some lines of work and b) flexibility requires some stability/commitment as well and that stability/commitment requires everyone to compromise a little. For example — and to borrow one of her examples — I’m not convinced a no-dinner-meeting-ever policy is all that awesome for everyone. It’s great if you have kids at home, but what about everyone else who would prefer to finish up and leave at 7, not break and return? What about the nights your kid has a school play at 7 pm or a parent has frisbee practice (because I think parents are allowed some hobbies in the happiness project) or the single person has bird-watching to do or the empty-nester wants to see a movie? My point is not that flexible schedules are bad (they’re good!) but that all of her examples derived from her preferences as a mother of kids at home and failed to account for the fact that others might have different preferences. An inclusive discussion would recognize multiple preferences, the inherent tension between them, and the need to deal with that.

/End rant/

YESSSSSSSSS! That makes me YOUNG!!!!!!!!!!!

Still, I really liked the article – the packaging of the cover wasn’t anything I saw with the online link – because Slaughter laid out how the problem is in the system that denigrates interest in one’s family in favour of ‘face time’ and other constructs that don’t actually make for a better worker or a better pay-off.

Nevertheless, I feel compelled to stand up for Paul Krugman. According to Wikipedia, Krugman has been married twice: his first wife is an award-winning designer, his current wife is an academic economist who has actually collaborated with Krugman on books but has a strong career of her own. Since he’s currently 59 years old, I’d hardly say that he “burns through wives” or that his wives have been the supportive behind-the-scenes cleaner-chauffeur-secretary types who have made so many men’s careers possible.

I would also say that anyone that blogs as frequently and substantively as he does, and writes as many essays for public consumption as he does, _is_ doing a service. He’s done more than any other writer to explain economic concepts to a wider audience (and gets regular hate mail for it, to boot). As for his own research, he’s published over 200 scholarly papers and written 20 books, at least some of which have been of a quality to win a few small prizes here and there. That’s a heck of a lot of productivity.