I was listening to the Diane Rehm Show and the C.O.O. of Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg, was the guest. She has written a book about women taking the lead in the workplace. We don't need a discussion about stay-at-home vs. working mothers, because each of us finds our own balance in that regard, some through choice, some through necessity, most through a combination. So why fight about it, right? Let's just assume we are all striving to do right by our children, and not judge each other. Let's pick on Sheryl Sandberg instead.
The thing Ms. Sandberg said that irked me was, "The numbers show that women take a hit in the workplace when they have a baby." Well, yeah. That's because you now have a baby. Did you assume you would be able to put in just as much time and energy at work AND have a baby? Look, you can put in 100% of your time at work or you can put in 100% of your time at home, or you can divide your time and energy the best you can, like everyone else. But you can't do all of it. No amount of "honest dialogue" on the topic is going to give you more than the allotted 24 hours a day. I don't understand why this woman thinks that she should be able to pursue a high-powered career, have a baby in the middle of it, and not be impacted by that child. Isn't it a disservice to the next generation that we're trying to figure out how to have children without having their existence impact our lives in any way?
Admittedly, I don't get it because I'm not in the corporate workplace. But I could have my violin shop open all day long if I didn't have kids. I could have five times as many students. I could make violins all day, and I could make a name for myself in the violin-making world. That would be great, but I can't have that for free.
This is not a gender discussion. It is a parenting discussion. We can't legislate a respect for parenting by making the workplace more "family-friendly." What we should be talking about is that choosing to have children takes time and sacrifice. In life, there are "either/or" scenarios. You may have to choose between either getting a promotion or being with your children more. Children impact life. They require 24-hour care. That is true. Is it really so ridiculous to accept the fact that if you take time off work to be with your children, you have to somehow pay the price at work? I think it is ludicrous to send a message to women, "You are weak if you don't want to be the president of a large corporation. You are silly if you let your offspring get in the way of your career."
Nobody who is a CEO, whether male or female, got to the top without sacrifice. Nobody can pass legislation that will give you a free ride to the top. If you want to be uber-successful in the business world, you have to give something up to get there. Men have known this for a long time. Women are just learning it, and they don't like it. But guess what, ladies? Nothing in life is free. Let's just admit it: "Society" isn't holding you back from being a CEO and having children. Men aren't holding you back. Other women aren't holding you back. Logistics are holding you back.
The thing Ms. Sandberg said that irked me was, "The numbers show that women take a hit in the workplace when they have a baby." Well, yeah. That's because you now have a baby. Did you assume you would be able to put in just as much time and energy at work AND have a baby? Look, you can put in 100% of your time at work or you can put in 100% of your time at home, or you can divide your time and energy the best you can, like everyone else. But you can't do all of it. No amount of "honest dialogue" on the topic is going to give you more than the allotted 24 hours a day. I don't understand why this woman thinks that she should be able to pursue a high-powered career, have a baby in the middle of it, and not be impacted by that child. Isn't it a disservice to the next generation that we're trying to figure out how to have children without having their existence impact our lives in any way?
Admittedly, I don't get it because I'm not in the corporate workplace. But I could have my violin shop open all day long if I didn't have kids. I could have five times as many students. I could make violins all day, and I could make a name for myself in the violin-making world. That would be great, but I can't have that for free.
This is not a gender discussion. It is a parenting discussion. We can't legislate a respect for parenting by making the workplace more "family-friendly." What we should be talking about is that choosing to have children takes time and sacrifice. In life, there are "either/or" scenarios. You may have to choose between either getting a promotion or being with your children more. Children impact life. They require 24-hour care. That is true. Is it really so ridiculous to accept the fact that if you take time off work to be with your children, you have to somehow pay the price at work? I think it is ludicrous to send a message to women, "You are weak if you don't want to be the president of a large corporation. You are silly if you let your offspring get in the way of your career."
Nobody who is a CEO, whether male or female, got to the top without sacrifice. Nobody can pass legislation that will give you a free ride to the top. If you want to be uber-successful in the business world, you have to give something up to get there. Men have known this for a long time. Women are just learning it, and they don't like it. But guess what, ladies? Nothing in life is free. Let's just admit it: "Society" isn't holding you back from being a CEO and having children. Men aren't holding you back. Other women aren't holding you back. Logistics are holding you back.
