Final draft

Anne-Marie’s article demonstrates the dilemma that women face when trying to balance between family life and career life. If they continue with their careers, they will but their family relationship in jeopardy. On the other hand, if they concentrate on family life, their careers will end. The argument Anne brings on board in this article is that the American people ought to restructure the economy to meet a work-life balance. The argument based on the increasing gender gap that has made work-life balance even harder for women to achieve compared to men. Anne anticipates that those women in leadership positions will undoubtedly reduce this gap. The author advocates for greater changes in the systems, hence having a broader approach to the issue other than just basing on women (Slaughter).

Anne focuses on the challenges high profile women face while trying to balance work and family. The pressure they go through to get the resources for childcare and housework. From her argument, it is evident that women often make choices between the two forces; family and career. It reveals that in the happiest families, women take up most of the responsibilities at home. The author’s main aim is to advocate for changes in economic and social policies that will see this gap reduced. She presents the characteristics of a woman with too many expectations from both the family and career and argues that one needs super-powers in order to discharge duties at both levels effectively.

The targeted audience in this article are the young educated women, as she tries to let them know that it is not easy juggling career and family. It calls for sacrifice and this could lead to frustrations especially with the increasing demand for attention from both sides. She argues that as long as the economic and social policies are not changed, those women in high profile jobs will continue experiencing the same dilemma and this will have adverse effects on their lives. They will end up straining beyond their limit due to fear of losing both their careers and their families.

Slaughter continues to reveal her immediate position as a senior official and outlines the challenges she has gone through in trying a work-life balance. Her arguments emerge through a proper organization of sentences and the use of simple English. The structure of the sentences makes it even simpler for the reader to grasp the concepts presented in the article. The author sacrifices a better part of the article to identify the group of young learned women she is addressing, to make her points clear on the importance of closing the gendered leadership gap. She further recognizes other women who have no worries about having it all, but focus on keeping what they have. The fact that there are even more pressing issues facing the lower income women, it does not make this article of no importance. The author in this article reveals the critics of her choices by bringing in a well thought argument on the need to effect economic and policy changes. Slaughter accepts that men are not an exception in this argument, adding that they too have equally same problems, only that women are the most affected and are more likely to make choices between career and family. In summary, Anne is blaming the economic and societal structures that makes it impossible for women to fulfill their career and care for their families and distances her arguments against feminism.

Why men Still Can't Have It All

Dorment writes this article to counter Anne’s arguments. His main point of defense is that men too struggle to maintain a work life balance adding that life up there is never a smooth sailing for everyone. He argues that one should not complain while seeking life at the top since those high profile jobs come with their own demands and rewards. While employing a defensive tone, he fails to hold up to his argument (Dorment). He does not bring the facts as to why men cannot have it all. Whereas Anne identifies the “who” as women, Dorment in his article identifies the “who” as men but finally discredits this point by adding that the argument should be non-gendered. He argues that Anne’s point is baseless and unpersuasive, adding that she relies on personal experience. Dorment tries to bring in the idea that both men and women go through the same problems in equal measures. He discredits Anne’s idea that women are more burdened by the pressure to balance both the career and their families asserting that men on the other hand are still the breadwinners in most families and they still go through many challenges while trying to balance both career and family. Dorment’s main shortcomings in his article is that in his arguments, he does not bring any facts but goes ahead to Anne’s article as misleading.

It is evident that Dorment wants us to shift the argument towards the challenges facing individuals other than debating on men versus women. This even creates more confusion since he focuses on men and later sharply diverts the whole argument to a more general one. He fails to highlight the historical facts for inequality but rather offers advice for women and men on how to handle work and life. Dorment has not explained the “it” in the “have it all.” Unlike Anne, she clearly brings out the “it” as a combination of family and work (Dorment). Dorment goes ahead to use men who have failed in their responsibilities to show that life is hard for men, which is not true. He should have used his personal experience or even give facts other than injecting his stories. He continues with his defensive position citing Ellen Galinksy who asserts that men have a higher work-family conflict. He accuses Slaughter of using her situation to bring in a very sensitive discussion on board. This is not so since Anne was just highlighting some of the problems most high profile women go through. She uses her situation as an example representing other women in other public institutions going through the same problems she experienced. He further argues that the fact women are not taking the choices available for them should not be blamed on men or the employer. It is evident that in his article, all he does is to blame Anne and women in general. He does not give facts that show why men cannot have it all neither does he support Slaughter’s argument on why women cannot have it all. It therefore makes it so difficult for the reader to understand his point of argument in details.

The argument takes a new twist when Dorment uses mad men to show how life can be hard for men and are more susceptible to office politics (Goss). It is evident that Dorment’s article brings a lot of confusion to the audience since he does not outline his points clearly. He decides to take a defensive position, attacking Slaughter’s work without giving facts on his arguments. Even though the sentences in this article are well structured, he fails to bring in the grammar part as he does not explain the “it” in the “have it all.” This therefore makes Anne’s article the most efficient in attempting to highlight the gender issues in our societies in relation to career and family. She brings out clearly the pressing issues facing women and gives her recommendations on how to best deal with them other than taking a defensive position like Dorment has done. We can conclude that Anne Slaughter’s article is more convincing and factual than Dorment’s article.

Reference

Dorment, Richard. "Why Men Still Can’t Have It All". Print.

Slaughter, Anne-Marie. Why Women Still Can't Have It All. Print.