Book Review and Reflection of "The Day the Falls Stood Still"

Role Reversal

First published August 16, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/08/16/role-reversal/

In THE DAY THE FALLS STOOD STILL, (by Cathy Marie Buchanan, Voice, 2009) we see Elizabeth (Bess) fall in love with Tom. Bess is a young woman who was born into a life of privilege. Family circumstances change, and she finds herself learning to sew for a living to help her mother support the family. She is forced to leave her private boarding school, as well. Once home, she falls in love with Tom Cole, a local boy who grew up in a small cabin near Niagra Falls where he learned to read the river, fish and hunt from his grandfather, a local legend. Of course, even though Bess sews for a living, her mother disapproves of Tom. She is betrothed to the brother of her boarding school roommate, much to her chagrin. When Bess’s sister, Isabelle, takes her own life by drowning herself in the falls, it is Tom who seeks Bess when he finds the body. Bess learns that Isabelle was pregnant, and when the family fortune was lost and Isabelle’s fiancé spurned her, she sees Isabelle felt she had no choice other than suicide. Bess swears Tom and the undertaker to secrecy about the pregnancy, and is dutiful through her sister’s wake. Unable to bear her grief any longer on her own, she goes to visit Tom at his boarding house, and is seen by residents of the small town, of course.

The family’s recovery seems in peril, as Bess was expected to marry Edward Atwell, and save them from certain ruin. Bess determines she will marry Tom, regardless of her parents’ dismay. One would think Bess a headstrong woman, ahead of her time, willing to make sacrifices for love. Yet, wouldn’t that character seem cliché? Bess does not sacrifice her principles, rather, later in their marriage, she asks her husband, Tom, to do so, claiming it is for the benefit of the family.

Tom goes off to serve in World War I and returns an emotionally disturbed man. Bess rallies to help him recover his sense of the world by coaxing him back to his beloved river. Yet, she heals him only to force him to compromise the very principles on which his well-being rests. She convinces him to take work for the hydroelectric power company, the very industry threatening the river that seems to flow through his body like blood. For a time, Tom is able to fend off the guilt he feels at digging channels that will divert the water flow. Ultimately, though, he becomes obsessed, manic. He hikes the gorge for hours, takes measurements and records them in a notebook.

When he is no longer the man she fell in love with as the result not of war wounds, but rather due to sacrificing his principles for a paycheck, Bess decides she doesn’t care about the house that seemed so important and that she no longer believes Tom’s salary is necessary to their well-being. She decides she can support the family with her sewing alone, and that they will do without anything else Tom’s salary might provide. And, when Tom seems he may be unwilling to leave his post, Bess makes sure he is fired from it by taking his diaries and charts and giving them to a reporter so that a critique of the power company may appear in the paper.

It is not just women who suffer the “problem that has no name.” Men, too, suffer in our society today and throughout history with the roles into which they are cast. Men are to work, to bring in the money for the household. No one ever asks whether they like the work they do, or whether it asks them to compromise their principles. Quite possibly, had they remained in rented rooms, Bess might have brought in the main income, while Tom was “unemployed” and raised their children by taking them fishing, hunting and teaching them to tend the garden and make repairs to the home in which they rented rooms as a way of lowering their cash outlay. Bess may be seen as a woman ahead of her time, or one who is romantically revered for her ability to leave behind a world of privilege for love. The story we do not hear is that of Tom. We do not learn enough about men who go off to war because society expects it of him. We do not learn about his suffering, which is kept quiet, when he returns emotionally wrought. We do not read about the bitter pill he swallows each morning he reports to work for a company that is essentially diverting his metaphoric soul as it takes water from the river. Rather than a “modern woman,” I see Bess as manipulative and conniving as she claims her mother and other townswomen to be.

In our consideration of the situation of women in our society, of how work might better accommodate family life and of how we might all be equal, with not just one sex having the most freedom, we must consider these untold stories of men. We must work toward altering the societal reaction to a father as homemaker and primary childcare provider. We need to value the work of raising children and maintaining a household, just as much as we hold dear the world of paid work and career, whether it is a woman or man who does either job.

Sin in the Second City, as well as New York, L.A., Etc. - Book Review and Reflection

First published August 9, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/08/09/sin-in-the-second-city-as-well-as-new-york-l-a-etc-2/

Karen Abbott wrote about prostitution in her book SIN IN THE SECOND CITY: MADAMS, MINISTERS, PLAYBOYS AND THE BATTLE FOR AMERICA’S SOUL, which was published by Random House in 2008. This nonfiction book tells the story of Minna and Ada Everleigh, who took Chicago by storm with their upscale Everleigh Club, a stark contrast to the seedier prostitution practices in the city. Minna and Ada are credited with operating an establishment that offered the most extreme services connected with prostitution, also did so with regard for the health and welfare of its female employees. The Everleigh sisters were shrewd business women with Ada serving as head of human resources and accounting and Minna as the operations manager, advertising and PR director.

SIN IN THE SECOND CITY dispels some of the myths and confirms many suspicions one might have about prostitution and its reform at the turn of the Century. The Everleigh Club was in operation from 1900 to 1911, just over one hundred years ago. The controversy over prostitution continues today. We still hear of famous, wealthy and politically powerful people who avail themselves of the services of prostitutes, and we still find reformers and policymakers who, in an attempt to crack down on prostitution, actually put people in danger of further harm with their well-meaning campaigns. For example, there has been a crackdown wherein prostitutes who carry condoms have those condoms used as evidence against them, as proof of their commission of the crime of prostitution. Additionally, while public health employees distribute condoms to sex workers, police confiscate them from the women in an effort to deter them from engaging in prostitution, at least for that night. (See editorial in the NEW YORK TIMES by Megan McLemore.) Even as HIV positive status continues to increase for prostitutes worldwide, police use confiscation of condoms and threat of prosecution for possessing condoms.

Unsurprisingly, interviews with prostitutes confirm that confiscation of condoms does not stop sex work, but rather makes it riskier for all involved. In an effort to support the use of condoms by sex workers and their clientele, New York has pending legislation that would disallow condoms as evidence in prostitution cases.

The same battle continues today. A hundred years ago, the reformers attacked the widely known Everleigh Club and eventually succeeded in putting it out of business. As we know, prostitution in Chicago and elsewhere did not end when the Everleigh Club closed. What ended was any sort of protection for the women engaged in sex work, such as those found as courtesans in such a club where a physician was employed to help cure and readily treat disease. Even as reformers wanted to stop human trafficking that was associated with prostitution, merely closing down the Everleigh Club did not do anything toward reducing sex work or human trafficking. The same holds true today, when in an attempt to stop prostitution, our police departments (New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco are mentioned in the New York Times op-ed piece) merely increase the likelihood of HIV transmission, along with other sexually transmitted illnesses. Just as the reformers in Chicago likely realized, we need to see that making sex work less safe does nothing to curb its existence.

Prostitution is a hot button issue in feminist circles. Some women claim it is empowering as they are essentially business owners who shape their work environment and support children who might otherwise starve. Some claim sex work as the ultimate evil, something that must be eradicated as its nature is degrading to anyone participating in it. (See Allyson Whipple’s Her Circle post here to read more about the controversy.) Regardless of where one stands on the issue itself, safety and health amongst prostitutes and their clients should remain a priority.

Take Charge of Our Health Care - Book Review and Reflection

First published August 2, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/08/02/taking-charge-of-our-health-care/

I work in a women’s health clinic and often interview patients about their gynecological care. Quite often, I hear from women about how little they like their gynecologist or primary care physician. They report to me everything from indifference in behavior to things that are egregious to the point of being reportable to licensing boards. I always remind patients that it is their choice about whom they see for medical care, and that they can, even in the middle of treatment, seek another care provider.

Several of my friends are midwives and doulas (labor/birth support providers). They talk about patients who feel badly about “abandoning” their ob/gyn, especially if the person is someone they’ve relied upon for gynecological care for several years. This happened to me with my first pregnancy. I knew I wanted a midwife and a home birth. However, until I found a midwife, I began my maternity care with my gynecologist. After my first visit, I knew we had a deep divide in our view of birth. (My doctor actually told me that having an epidural was just like natural birth because you were awake throughout the birth.)

As women, we need to advocate for ourselves in our medical care, whether it is our gynecological, obstetric or general medical care. We need to use our voices and speak up for ourselves to make sure we get the care we need and deserve. Martine Ehrenclou wrote THE TAKE-CHARGE PATIENT: HOW YOU CAN GET THE BEST MEDICAL CARE, which was published in May (Lemon Grove Press, 2012). In her book, Ehrenclou reminds us to be partners in our own care, and to develop a “team” of sorts. Especially when we face a long term or serious diagnosis, or we’re in the process of determining a diagnosis, we need support and assistance from others more than ever.

Having a friend, spouse or family member accompany you may help you speak up. You can be reminded to ask particular questions, and your friend may validate feelings you have about a doctor. More than ever, we need to view physicians and health care providers as members of our health care team, a team for which we are the captains. We need to be able to rely on our care providers like teammates, and they must exhibit the same traits we’d seek in team members: trustworthiness, a mutual respect and the ability to communicate, which is both our ability to communicate with them and their ability to be heard by us.

Ehrenclou reminds readers that when visiting any other professional, we’d have records with us, a description of our situation and be ready participants to the remedy of the situation. She is right. If we seek our accountant for an issue, we bring W-2 forms, 1099s, prior tax returns, receipts and bank statements along with other paperwork. If we see an attorney about an issue, we make sure we also have whatever paperwork might support the case or provide evidence. We’re used to being in control of other situations, and we need to be as active in our healthcare as we are in other areas of life.

In light of all the changes taking place through legislation of health insurance and health care, we must all be aware of and knowledgeable about what is and isn’t covered and what everything costs. Women typically take care of themselves last, and put their family’s needs before their own. We can be good role models to friends, children and our family members by being strong self-advocates in our own health care.

"The Good Girls Revolt" Book Review

First published on July 26, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/07/26/the-good-girls-revolt-by-lynn-povich/

AVAILABLE SEPTEMBER 2012

NEWSWEEK published a cover story on the feminist movement entitled “Women in Revolt” in March of 1970. The day the issue was released, women employees at NEWSWEEK filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC against the magazine. THE GOOD GIRLS REVOLT: HOW THE WOMEN OF NEWSWEEK SUED THEIR BOSSES AND CHANGED THE WORKPLACE (by Lynn Povich,PublicAffairs Books, September 2012) tells the story not only of the lawsuit but also its aftermath and shows how the NEWSWEEK women’s actions and their complaint are still relevant today.

Povich describes the late 1960s and early 1970s at NEWSWEEK, and credits the magazine with evenhanded reporting even as it began to express an opinion and take sides on issues such as civil rights and the war in Vietnam. While those in senior positions, such as Oz Elliott, worked to promote equality between races, equality of women was not part of the equation. So distinct was the divide between women’s rights and the civil rights movement, that no black women atNEWSWEEK joined the forty-six white women who signed the lawsuit. Povich describes how, at the time, the black women identified more with race than with their gender. This divide is interesting given that it was Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act under which the complaint was made. Povich points out that this divide “was one of the chilling contradictions of the culture: advocating civil rights for all while tolerating—or overlooking—the subjugation of women.” Not all women at NEWSWEEK supported the lawsuit. Not even all women at the magazine were privy to the details of the lawsuit before it was filed, either. Helen Dudar at first couldn’t understand her colleagues’ actions, as she did not consider herself a feminist.

Helen Dudar, who worked for the New York Post and was hired by Newsweek as a consultant to write the original article, couldn’t understand her colleagues’ actions, as she did not consider herself a feminist. Povich quotes Dudar, “I have spent years rejecting feminists without bothering to look too closely at their charges…It has always been easy to dismiss substance out of dislike for style.” This comment deserves further analysis, as later in the book, Povich describes how when the fortieth anniversary of the lawsuit approached, and an article about it was published at NEWSWEEK, with writers commenting on what was accomplished and what remained to be accomplished, the feminist blog Jezebel reacted harshly to what was written. The writers felt attacked “from within” the current feminist tribe.

While Dudar may have rejected substance because she was put off by style, I believe this is true with what are considered “extreme” feminist publications today. Rather than attack one another for not being “feminist enough,” we need to rally around causes and issues. We may work to expand the issue or awareness without attacking the messenger or the style of the message. I don’t advocate herein for sugarcoating or taking the “good girl” approach to a brasher one. I am merely against infighting.

In light of the past several weeks of articles here at inContext that I’ve written, there is one quote I think is extremely relevant as we look at women in positions of power and how that changes things. Povich describes being approached by one of her writers when she was promoted to an editorial position. The writer, Ken Woodward, told Povich how he, at first, did not want to work with her and questioned her credentials. As he came to realize her talent and abilities, Woodward felt Povich’s presence actually humanized the work environment. He admitted to Povich that he previously claimed a doctor’s appointment if he wished to leave early to see his son’s baseball games. However, with a woman boss, he no longer felt the need to lie. Considering that this comment was made back in the 1970s, it is astounding to consider the implications of this today. THE GOOD GIRLS REVOLT is am important reminder of what has happened in the past forty years, even as it serves as a lesson about what work lies ahead of our society. As part of changing the rhetoric from things being “women’s issues” to being issues affecting everyone, I purposefully chose “society” versus claiming that changes in the workplace are needed specifically for women. Woodward’s desire to be an active father makes him an unwitting precursor to the current movement toward changes needed for families in how childrearing and work combine (or don’t).

THE GOOD GIRLS REVOLT: HOW THE WOMEN OF NEWSWEEK SUED THEIR BOSSES AND CHANGED THE WORKPLACE by Lynn Povich will be available September 10, 2012 from PublicAffairs Books.

The Mommy Wars Continue: Birth Choices As Battle Zone

First published July 12, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/07/12/the-mommy-wars-continue-birth-choices-as-battle-zone/

PHOTO BY DENNIS MOJADO

Women at baby showers bristle or exchange knowing looks when the guest of honor starts down a path describing her natural birth plan. What would otherwise be close friends or family members become “frenemies.” As soon as they can excuse themselves, those who have already had children, and who chose epidural or other anesthesia to assist their labors, gather around the punch bowl to exchange glances or to make predictive comments. “We’ll see how she feels about natural childbirth when she’s had seventeen hours of labor,” an aunt says to the mother’s best friend, who smiles and nods in agreement, both with eyebrows raised.

Why do women continue to attack one another for choices about how each chooses to conduct her pregnancy and how she gives birth? The most recent victim of this backlash is Miranda Kerr. The lambasting is particularly vengeful when a model or actress, who has inevitably recovered her pre-baby body, with seeming ease, claims the benefits of long-term breastfeeding or advocates for natural childbirth. Women bloggers take umbrage and claim they want the offending fellow mother to keep it to herself.

This article will be published on my son’s birthday. My son was born at home and I had the care of a midwife. Throughout my pregnancies (my son is my second child), coworkers, friends and relatives chided us about our choice to have midwifery care and home births. “What if something goes wrong?” was the inevitable question. No one could name that “something” so that we might be able to reply intelligently about each possible instance and what the midwives would do to handle it. It was always a mysterious “something” that was ominous yet unnameable.

I understand that women who plan on epidurals before even seeing the plus sign on the pee stick or getting the call from the lab are sometimes attacked, as well. They’re cornered by people they consider “birth Nazis” who pepper them with statistics about complications from epidurals, about the need for antibiotics for epidural fevers and about their increased chances of Cesarean section when epidurals are used. These women feel as equally attacked and under pressure as I did, just from another angle.

What I advocate for is for choice for women. I specifically desire informed choice, yet defining the word “informed” is a daunting task. Not everyone wants to be informed about everything. Especially where medicine and medical care are concerned, many people just want someone to “fix it” and want to leave judgments about what is o.k. and what is not o.k. to their doctors. When the doctor makes a decision or allows a woman to make a choice and she later determines she was not as informed as she might have been, lawsuits occur. There are presently lawsuits against doctors who did not perform Cesarean sections, and there are dead babies and disabled babies lined up in pictures in courtrooms. There are also women who sue for unnecessary Cesareans. They claim the doctor acted too soon, that his or her prediction of a large baby was inaccurate and/or that they had complications from the surgery of which they do not feel they were informed adequately. What are doctors and mothers to do?

Like novels that re-imagine history with alternate outcomes, we can never know what would have happened had any of us chosen different care providers, places of birth or even what we ate for breakfast (or didn’t) the day we began labor. Each woman can tell only her story of her birthing experience. For me, I believe (believe, not know) that had I been seeing an obstetrician, my first child would have been a C-section. She was large and I dilated and effaced before her due date. The doctor who had been my ob/gyn at the time would have offered to induce me, at the very least. Instead, I had midwifery care, and a planned home birth, wherein I labored at eight centimeters for six hours. I then labored at nine centimeters for two and a half more. I then pushed three times to birth my nine pounds, twelve ounces daughter. Other women, friends of mine, believe they would have died had they been at home for their births. They believe that their epidurals and C-sections saved them and their babies from certain death, grave illness or injury. They cite extended labors and intense pain, which they believe would have made them transport to a hospital for relief. Then, when labor stalled (possibly because of the epidural and possibly not because of anything done medically), and their baby’s heartbeat crashed upon the addition of pitocin to augment the stalled labor, they believe the subsequent C-section was medically necessary and also a lifesaver for all.

Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? None of us can turn back the experience to attempt it through the alternative. As such, we need to stop judging one another and our choices. We can validate the birth experience of a woman who felt relieved by epidural or other anesthesia and also the woman who chose an elective C-section so that her mother who lives across the country could plan to be there for the birth and early weeks. We can support the woman who chose a home birth and no intervention, and not chastise her for the supposed risks she took or call her “lucky” as a way of explaining away her “good fortune” of a birth as she desired it.

While I am firmly rooted in childbirth as a natural process, I am more deeply rooted in individual experiences of women as valid and worthy of respect. I’d like nothing more than to have every woman educated about all of the risks and benefits of each and every choice in pregnancy and birth. I’d also love it if that once that education was in place, and each woman felt as informed as she wished to be, that we could honor one another even as we make different choices for our children and ourselves. We need to stop attempting to silence women, as I know plenty of people who feel hesitant to speak of their planned C-section at a La Leche League meeting as I know of people hesitant to let on about their planned home birth to colleagues or relatives. Why silence any experience? Why not add to the discourse without judgment and validate each individual woman?

Delusions of Gender and "Having It All" - Book Review and Reflection

First published July 5, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/07/05/delusions-of-gender-and-having-it-all/

Over the past few weeks, inContext has looked at “dangerous questions” about possible differences between male and female brains, then mommy guilt and identity and motherhood. Last week, we took up the mantle of women in positions of power in government and business. Considering these related topics, I did some research on what information might shed further light into these issues.

Cordelia Fine attempts to debunk a lot of what gets passed off as solid science where male and female brains are concerned in her book DELUSIONS OF GENDER: HOW OUR MINDS, SOCIETY AND NEUROSEXISM CREATE DIFFERENCE. Fine contends that much of what we read in books and magazine articles about differences in female and male brains is actually more culturally and socially based than biologically “wired.” The author proposes two arguments to support her theory that there is very little difference between the actual brains of men and women and that the difference stems from culture. She also states that where gender and the brain are concerned, there have not been a great number of studies. Fine believes the psychological differences that we read about or hear about, which are expressed as hard science, are actually expressed in the ways they are because the researchers themselves are cultured to think of men and women in a particular way already.

This relates to Slaughter’s “having it all” article significantly, as Slaughter claimed women were not in positions of power because the jobs required extraordinary hours and time away from family that she and other women colleagues did not wish to take. The problem was characterized as that facing families, and men should not be away as much as they are, either. I claimed this was wishful thinking on the part of the author. I don’t mean to be cynical or a black cloud over the desired utopia wherein women and men are treated completely equally and that family time is valued by business. It is not the nature of business to value family, since family does not make businesses money, which is what they are in the business of doing in a capitalist society and economy.

Yes, there are employers who value individual employees, and that have generous leave time that allows employees to structure time away from work in a way that allows honesty and relationships to be fostered between managers and employees. For the most part, this is not the case. Across the job spectrum, from minimum-wage positions to those in the highest brackets, all things are not equal in this area either. Hourly wage earners with lower incomes can’t typically take time off, not only because their employers are inflexible, but also because they can’t afford to lose the pay that time off would inevitably cause.

In light of Fine’s book, the “dangerous question” of whether the majority of female brains are different from men’s brains still looms. Even asking the question begs neurosexism as when we ask, we typically do not see it as differences between two types of brains, but rather how one is different from the other. This is a subtle nuance, and the main point of what Fine discusses in the first part of her book. How we ask the question is shaped by how we are cultured. Since Slaughter’s article, James Joyner,managing editor at THE ATLANTIC Council, stood up for the male side of this issue and stated exactly what I did: men never have “had it all” and that a job needs your full attention and so do your children. (His response, from the male viewpoint, is extremely compelling since he is the father of two young children, and after the death of his wife, has turned down career opportunities to spend more time with his children.)

As more women enter the workforce, and remain there after having children, we’ve seen the great divide between men’s and women’s experience of this cultural and societal change. In some instances, we’ve seen families suffer due to the demanding career or work of one or both parents—at all ends of the income spectrum. Where “mommy guilt” comes in is for those in the upper income brackets who look at it like they choose to work when they could easily live off of one salary. Kids of wealthy parents who work a lot sometimes fall through the cracks or get into trouble or do poorly in school. However, the statistics about poverty tell the same sad tale of kids and their potential being cut short due to parental work schedules.

While we should not stop reaching for ideals, or dreaming about an actual balance between the requirements of work and raising children, we cannot think there are any easy solutions or once-size-fits-all fixes. I’m not sure that even legislation that extends or builds upon that which is in place presently can solve the situation, either. Certainly, legislation helps extend equality to employees across the income spectrum. However, as most of us have experienced ourselves or seen others deal with in their respective jobs, a piece of legislation does not help when the culture of a workplace casts a negative eye on it. As Joyner says, we cannot view childcare issues or work/family balance as women’s issues. We must include men’s voices and experiences when we think about parents, not just mothers, being active parts of their children’s lives. And, I suppose for now, we can also put aside questions of whether there are or are not differences in the actual brains of women and men, and focus on the ways in which culture and socialization ask different things of each sex. Maybe asking the question about differences between female and male brains is not so much a question for neuroscience to answer, especially until we unravel the culture and society that are the context for such a question. Thus, when Slaughter claims she felt more compelled to be home with her struggling son than did her husband, this may not be biology or neurology after all, but rather social and cultural conditioning.

More Commentary on Anne-Marie Slaughter's Lament and What About a Woman President?

First published June 28, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/06/28/more-commentary-on-anne-marie-slaughters-lament-and-what-about-a-woman-president/

The hot button issue of the day is Anne-Marie Slaughter’s article in THE ATLANTIC entitled “Women Still Can’t Have It All.” From the NEW YORK TIMES to two different NPR programs (On Point and the Diane Rehm Show), to countless blog posts, comments on the articles and radio shows online, what Slaughter wrote is being discussed. I believe this was her point, despite the criticism she’s taken personally as fall-out from her article. The article addresses mommy guilt along with women’s identity after childbearing, two topics INCONTEXT covered over the past few weeks.

Slaughter claims we need to change our culture and society where women, work and family are concerned. The author states this kind of change would not only benefit women, but also men and children. I hope to contribute to the national discussion on “having it all.” Some of what I write may seem combative, and my last point might seem downright ugly or anti-woman. I don’t take issue with Slaughter’s experience or her article so much as hope to expand it, and widen the experiences represented in the challenge all families, women, children and men face. I want to ask difficult questions, not to plant seeds of doubt, but rather to expand the discourse.

For a great majority of women, myself included, Slaughter’s stance that women feel compelled to be there for their own children is accurate. Whether this is partly biological and partly socio-cultural, it exists and is palpable for many women who must make sacrifices and difficult choices. When Slaughter writes about “having it all,” she means a high-powered career and also a family, for whom she is available as needed. This idea of “having it all” is a women’s issue, on the one hand, because women invented it. It is not the issue of men, as men have never “had it all.” They are either successful in high profile and/or high power positions and largely absent from their families, or even if available at times, they do not perform the greatest portion of household tasks or childrearing duties in addition to their high-powered paying job. Certainly, in today’s world, where women represent almost half the households in the country as main breadwinners or contribute at least half of a family’s total income, and men who stay home are as marginalized as women who do not work outside the home, the issue has expanded to include men, who have taken up the other half of the banner along with women. On the other hand, more men do want to be active, involved parents, and thus have spoken up about wanting and needing more flexibility in the workplace themselves.

In our global, capitalist, twenty-four hour, technological world, I don’t think work/life balance and the flexibility a family requires are even remote possibilities. The news cycle, business, politics, foreign policy, and caregiving never sleep. For some positions, ultimately those in power, one simply cannot be available for family and also be in charge. (More on this later.)

Slaughter admits her own privilege in her article, and knows that her situation is very different from the majority of the population wherein her work has had greater flexibility than most people can afford or find with employers—men or women. There are also plenty of women who don’t have the option of leaving a post after two years when their junior high school children struggle with school. I refer to our women in uniform, specifically. When a military mom is deployed, she can Skype her child who might live with grandma or an aunt, yet she definitely has no choice to leave her post and rush home to fix the homework problem. Women who are single heads of household who work three jobs to meet the rent also do not have the option to quit their jobs to be available for algebra assignments. And, no amount of change in the corporate or governmental structure is likely to change this for men or women in particular positions.

We’re horrified by women who choose careers over full-time motherhood. I wrote about Rahna Reiko Rizzuto (inContext, July 21, 2011) who left her children for work. Another example of such a woman is Dorothea Lange, who (along with her husband) essentially abandoned her children to the 1930s equivalent of foster care when her dream photography job came along. What interests me most about Ms. Lange is that her husband chose to accompany her as her assistant. Their own children, the Lange offspring, do not harbor negative feelings toward their father for leaving, yet they do blame their mother and question her motives. Technically speaking, it was her job, and their father might have easily remained home as the primary caregiver, a role that I know was virtually unheard of at the time. And yet, it is Ms. Lange who suffered the criticism, not her husband.

So, while Lange and Rizzuto are two examples of women who do not share Ms. Slaughter’s and my propensity toward being as present as possible for our children, even at the sacrifice of our strongly desired careers, as I stated earlier, I believe most women find themselves equally pulled toward parenting no matter how much they value their work. If we focus on women in positions of power, which Slaughter and other women of her ilk say may be the answer to the conundrum, let’s take the presidency as an example. Our president must be infinitely available to handle all major national and international crises, no matter what is going on at home. While he might, on occasion, read over an essay or assist with word problems, I do not believe President Obama allows these concerns to enter his mind when he’s in the situation room at the White House. If we believe Ms. Slaughter, then we have to wonder whether we want a woman as president, or at least a woman who has children still at home. We can’t elect a woman who will decide the job is too much as her teenagers begin high school or junior high. She can’t really quit after a two-year stint, either.

This discussion is important because as we continue to wonder about a woman as president in the United States, we need to explore what it is we ask of women, what we will accept from women and even from men. Presidents are “family” men historically. We like to think of our presidents as at least a little “like us” and understanding of the challenges families face. We recognize that some women will choose to forego public service careers to be more present mothers than such career choices might allow. When we find women like Lange or Rizzuto, we need to avoid rushing to judgment and vilify them. What is wrong with a woman choosing her career goals over her role as mother? “Plenty!” is the answer I hear from women and men. Yet, we never, ever question a man doing this very same thing. In fact, we commend him for his sacrifice.

As a voting public, we must decide what it is we ask of women, at all job positions and all levels of income. We need to re-examine what we desire in a presidential candidate, male or female. Whether you agree with her politics or not, Sarah Palin faced sharp criticism and questioning as a female vice presidential candidate with a very young child on the campaign trail. She also faced severe criticism for embracing policies about abstinence as sex education, when her own daughter obviously did not choose abstinence. Pundits were quick to ask whether Ms. Palin should have been home a bit more than in a governmental office so as to have prevented such circumstances.

If I take a moment to propose a male candidate with a young baby and pregnant teen daughter, I have to say that I can’t imagine the media wondering about his ability to lead or his dedication to his family. In that instance, it would be the daughter who was blamed for “marring” her father’s candidacy, and the mother would be questioned about her mothering skills. Overall, these issues would never come to bear on the male candidate’s ability to do his job.

I don’t have an answer to this difficult, challenging and volatile question of how we both honor women’s desires to be present when needed by their families and also in positions of power and prestige with rewarding careers. I applaud Slaughter for opening the floor for discussion of an issue so many women only whisper to one another about, and for speaking from the heart about her personal struggles with being drawn to work that requires so much from her, and which also asks too much of her when she feels that parenting is the primary task at which she must excel at a particular moment of her life and career. This issue is one that men, women and families definitely need to address, at all ends of the socio-economic spectrum. The challenge is to keep Slaughter’s comments from promoting a dismissal of women as contenders in powerful positions.