Here: http://www.ted.com/talks/anne_marie_slaughter_can_we_all_have_it_all/transcript
The few dislikes I have for the video are as follows: the feminism Slaughter witnessed is not the same that I have. She spoke in her introduction of feeling lesser when choosing “family over work”; I would attribute this not to feminism but to American society, but perhaps since she grew up in a different time and place she experienced a more aggressive, different kind of feminism than I have. I also find it necessary for feminism to exist-as I’ve previously stated, I think both genders need “movements” of sorts of their own, co-existing within the larger branch of humanist activism. Slaughter seems to make a dichotomy between feminism and humanism, which I disagree with. But I digress. (This is a well-written and performed presentation with excellent ideas…too bad quite a few of the comments I read are, in their entirety, merely bemoaning the supposed catastrophe that is feminism!)
The message of Slaughter’s video is excellent: she states that caregiving and breadwinning are equally important (and that these should not be delegated to gender). While feminism has made it acceptable for women to have a career, family, or both (arguably however to only some degree: working mothers are still often lambasted if not in person then on the internet), men are raised to be “breadwinners,” and a(n archaic) double standard still exists: while a woman can be an attractive partner whether she is working or not, the same cannot be said of a man. In other words, the female gender role has shifted (if not completely than at least more than slightly) but the male gender role has remained largely the same. While she does not directly state this, it is implied that this male “role”-of the responsible, stoic provider-is harmful in some ways for men, who are practically forced (by social pressure if not the pressure to keep a job) to miss out on the lives of their children.
Even in boys/men my age I see this: while most of the girls/women I know want to hold a position in the workforce, most have also considered, at one point or another, being a stay-at-home parent; the males I know have most certainly not. For the record, I think a more stereotypically “feminine” man would be quite attractive, and I find the idea of supporting a stay-at-home father attractive and intriguing (although unless I become a best selling novelist, for which the chances are slim to none, this idea will never become a reality, for there is no way a family can survive on a teacher’s salary!). But Slaughter is (+ I am) not calling for a gender-role reversal by any means, simply a more equal distribution of labor. She calls for a redefinition of masculinity, of which I (taking my friends and family members into account) am in full support.
As important as the satisfaction most get from an active work and home life are the economic and societal advantages which result from a more equal work/home gender balance. (Now I’m off to look for those studies she cited in her talk.)
Her optimism seems almost too great, although the idea of the future she describes is something great indeed. I hope I can be alive when this societal shift goes into full swing.
