MyOOPS開放式課程
請加入會員以使用更多個人化功能
來自全球頂尖大學的開放式課程,現在由世界各國的數千名義工志工為您翻譯成中文。請免費享用!
課程來源:TED
     

 

Anne-Marie Slaughter 談我們能「兼顧一切」嗎?

Anne-Marie Slaughter: Can we all "have it all"?

 

Photo of three lions hunting on the Serengeti.

講者:Anne-Marie Slaughter

2013年6月攝於TEDGlobal 2013

 

翻譯:洪曉慧

編輯:朱學恒

簡繁轉換:洪曉慧

後制:洪曉慧

字幕影片後制:謝旻均

 

影片請按此下載

MAC及手持裝置版本請按此下載

閱讀中文字幕純文字版本

 

關於這場演講

公共政策專家Anne-Marie Slaughter 2012年的文章《為何女性仍無法兼顧一切》引起巨大迴響。但事實上,這只是女性的問題嗎?在這場演講中,Slaughter擴展她的觀點,解釋為何職場文化、公共政策及社會習俗的變革可帶來更多平等-對男性、女性及所有人來說。

 

關於Anne-Marie Slaughter

Anne-Marie Slaughter闡述關於女性「工作-生活平衡」的觀點。

 

為什麼要聽她演講

Anne-Marie Slaughter曾擔任普林斯頓伍德羅.威爾遜公共與國際事務學院院長,也是美國國務院政策籌備處首位女性主任。2013年底,她離開普林斯頓,擔任新美國基金會主席。Slaughter與丈夫擁有兩個兒子。她曾公開闡述,兼顧她的高層工作與母親角色是可行的,只要她能彈性掌控自己的時間表,但一旦她無法作主,則不可能達成。

 

在2012年成為《大西洋月刊》點閱率最高的文章中,Slaughter推翻近期廣為流傳的概念:女性無法「兼顧一切」是因為缺乏野心。相反地,她認為,大多數高層工作已呈固定模式,包括對雇員的期望,無視於性別差異;堅持盲目投入工作,將工作置於家庭生活或其他熱情之上。創造一個更有彈性的工作環境不僅能使女性及男性受益,也有益於整個社會。她認為我們不該接受:「花時間與家人相處的渴望令人羞愧」的想法。

 

Anne-Marie Slaughter的英語網上資料

Atlantic: "Why women still can't have

Bio: Anne-Marie Slaughter

 

[TED科技‧娛樂‧設計]

已有中譯字幕的TED影片目錄(繁體)(簡體)。請注意繁簡目錄是不一樣的。

 

Anne-Marie Slaughter 談我們能「兼顧一切」嗎?

 

因此我人生的關鍵時刻並非突然來臨。2010年,我獲得從當時職位晉升為美國國務院政策籌備處主任的機會,這正是我挺身向前、更上一層樓的時機,爭取這類機會難求的高層外交政策工作。當時我剛為國務卿克林頓女士成功完成一個長達18個月的大計畫,因此我知道自己有能力擔負重責大任。

 

我自認的那個我本應欣然接受,但我已在華盛頓及我丈夫和兩位十幾歲兒子居住的紐澤西州普林斯頓市來回通勤了兩年,情況並非盡如人意。我浮現過在華盛頓再打拼兩年的想法,也許讓兒子轉學、讓丈夫換工作,要求他們配合我的規劃。但內心深處,我知道正確的決定是回歸家庭,即使我已不再熟悉做出這個決定的我。

 

那是基於愛和責任的決定。我再也無法眼睜睜地看著大兒子做出錯誤選擇,因為當他或許需要我的時候,我無法陪伴在他身旁。但真正的改變是逐漸顯現的。之後的一年,當我的家庭逐漸回歸正軌,我開始意識到即使有機會再回政府單位工作,我也不願意。我不願錯失兒子離家自立前最後五年的相處時光。最後我說服自己接受對我來說最重要的是什麼,那並非我習以為常的目標,或也許是我讓自己習以為常的目標。這個決定導致我重新審視伴隨我成長、我始終捍衛的女權主義觀念。

 

我仍致力於男女平等的目標,但我們不妨思考一下平等真正的含義,以及如何以最佳方式實現。我一向認為社會中最受尊敬、最有影響力的人,是在職場上擁有最高地位的男人,因此男女平等的衡量標準應該是女性在以下職位中所佔的數量:首相、總統、執行長、主任、經理、諾貝爾獎得主、領導者。我依然認為我們應盡其所能地實現這個目標,但這只是真正平等的一半。現在我認為我們永遠無法達成目標,除非我們瞭解另一半是什麼。我認為真正的平等、完整的平等不僅意味著以男性標準評估女性,它意味著提供更廣泛、受到同等尊重的選擇,無論對女性或男性來說。為了實現這個目標,我們必須改變我們的職場、我們的政策和文化。

 

在職場中,真正的平等意味著視家庭與工作同等重要,並瞭解兩者是相輔相成的。身為領導者及管理者,我總是遵循這個概念:如果家庭放第一位,工作絕非第二位,生活是兩者齊頭並進。如果你為我工作,當你面臨家庭問題時,我希望你用心處理。我有信心,我的信心總被證明是對的,那就是工作不但會完成,甚至做得更好。那些需要回家照顧孩子或家人的員工通常更專注、更有效率、更注重成果,身兼養家糊口及照料家庭角色的人通常擁有更廣泛的經歷和交際圈。試想一下,一位律師將部分時間用於參與孩子學校活動、與其他家長進行交流,他較可能為公司引入新客戶,相較於寸步不離辦公室的律師。而照料家庭本身可培養耐心-很大的耐心-以及同理心、創造力、應變力、適應力。在一個高速化、平行化、網路化的全球經濟體中,這些特質將顯得更為重要。

 

最優秀的公司確實瞭解這一點,那些以職場彈性著稱的美國公司包括某些美國最成功的公司。2008年一項針對改變勞動力的國家研究顯示,員工在有彈性及效率的職場中更傾向於投入工作,他們的滿意度、忠誠度均較高,他們擁有較低的壓力程度及較高的精神健康程度。2012年一項關於雇主的研究顯示,較靈活的做法確實能降低營運成本,增加對於全球服務經濟體的適應力。

 

因此你或許認為工作優先於家庭的觀念僅僅是美國人的問題,但遺憾的是,工作狂熱不再是美國獨有的問題。二十年前,我的家庭首次前往義大利時,曾盡情享受當地的午休文化。午休不僅是為了避開一天中的炎熱時刻,事實上也在於享受家庭午餐的溫暖。現在,當我們再次前往,為了午休暫停營業的公司越來越少,反映出全球企業的推進及24小時的競爭,因此為我們所愛的人留點空間確實是全球使命。

 

在政策方面,真正的平等意味著將傳統意義上女性從事的工作,視為與傳統意義上男性從事的工作同等重要,無論從事這些工作的是誰。思考一下:養家糊口與照料家庭對人類生存同樣不可或缺,至少當我們超越以物易物的經濟模式,總得有人賺取收入,有人得將收入轉變成照料及維持家人生計所需。

 

好,當你們聽我談到養家糊口及照料家庭時,大多數人本能地將這兩類工作區分為男性與女性的工作。我們通常不會質疑為何男性的工作佔有優勢,但考慮一對同性伴侶,例如我的朋友Sarah和Emily。她們是精神科醫生,她們5年前結婚,現在有一對兩歲的雙胞胎。她們喜愛母親的角色,但她們也熱愛自己的工作。她們的表現確實相當出色,因此她們該如何分配養家糊口與照料家庭的責任?其中一位是否應該離職或減少工作時間、待在家裡?或她們是否都應該換工作,以便擁有更具彈性的時間表?她們應根據何種標準做決定?誰賺得多?還是誰的事業心強?或誰的老闆比較好商量?

 

同性伴侶的範例幫助我們瞭解,兼顧工作與家庭並非女性問題,而是家庭問題。Sarah和Emily算是幸運,因為她們擁有工作量的選擇。數百萬男性及女性必須兼顧養家糊口及照料家庭的責任,只為了賺取所需的收入。其中大多數人分身乏術,他們勉強拼湊出照料家庭的時間,這並不足夠,且往往不保險。如果養家糊口與照料家庭確實平等,為何政府對作為健康社會基礎之照護基礎設施的投資,不比照作為成功經濟支柱的物質基礎設施?

 

意識到這一點的政府-不令人意外-意識到這一點的政府包括挪威、瑞典、丹麥、荷蘭,他們提供廣泛的兒童照護、家中照護,支援學校照料及兒童早期教育,為孕婦提供保護措施,為老年人及殘障人士提供照護。這些政府對照護基礎設施的投資如同對道路、橋樑、隧道及鐵路的投資,這些社會也證明養家糊口與照料家庭是相輔相成的。它們是全球前15大最具競爭力經濟體名單中的常客,但同時他們在OECD(經濟合作與發展組織)美好生活指數中也名列前茅。事實上他們的排名優於其他國家,例如我的國家-美國,或瑞士,這些國家擁有較高平均收入,但較低的工作-生活均衡水準。

 

因此改變我們的職場並建立照護基礎設施將造成極大影響,但我們仍無法獲得同等價值的選擇,除非改變我們的文化。這種文化變革需求意味著重塑男性的社會觀。(掌聲)在已發展國家中,越來越多女性已不再擁有我們的職場僅局限於家中的社會觀,但男性的觀念仍一如往常,男性仍擁有他們必須扮演養家糊口角色的社會觀,這使他們藉由在職場中盡可能超越其他男性來獲得自尊。女權主義革命的道路仍十分漫長,當然尚未完成,但《女性的奧秘》出版後60年,許多女性確實擁有比男性更多的選擇。我們可選擇養家糊口、照料家庭,或兩者兼顧,但另一方面,當男性選擇照料家庭,相當於使自己的男子氣概岌岌可危。他的朋友或許會稱讚他的決定,但內心肯定百思不解。難道對男性的衡量標準不在於他與其他男性在權力和聲望上的競爭意願嗎?持有這種觀點的女性與男性一樣多,我們知道許多女性對男性魅力的判斷仍多半基於他的事業成就。一位離開職場的女性仍可成為魅力十足的伴侶,對男性來說,這是風險極大的提議。因此身為家長和妻子,我們應教育兒子和丈夫扮演他們希望的角色,無論是照料家庭或養家糊口。我們應教育他們讓男性照料家庭成為很酷的事。(掌聲)

 

我幾乎能聽見許多人心想:「不可能。」但事實上這種改變正在發生,至少在美國,許多男性對烹飪相當自豪,並坦誠熱衷於此。他們會進產房、盡可能休育嬰假,他們會推嬰兒散步或安撫幼兒,就像妻子一樣駕輕就熟。他們逐漸包攬更多家務。事實上,現在有些男大學生開始聲稱:「我想擔任全職父親。」這是50年前、甚至30年前完全難以想像的情形。在挪威,男性自動享有三個月的育嬰假,但如果他們選擇放棄,則失去這個權益。一位政府高層官員告訴我,有些公司開始藉此觀察男性員工,並對他們留下負面印象,如果他們孩子誕生時不曾休育嬰假。這意味著不願善盡父責似乎開始被視為一種品格缺陷。

 

因此我自小認為,捍衛女性權利意味著盡其所能地讓女性站上巔峰,我仍希望在有生之年目睹所有階級的勞動力都實現男女平等的目標。但我開始相信,我們必須珍視家庭,如同我們對工作的重視。我們應接受這個想法:善待我們所愛的人將使我們在各方面都表現得更出色。

 

30年前,Carol Gilligan一位研究青春期少女的出色心理學家,確認屬於人性本質的關懷倫理與公正倫理同樣重要。這意味著「不關心」在我們部分觀念中相當於「不公平」。比爾.蓋茲贊同這個觀點,他認為人性中兩股偉大的力量是利己和關懷他人。讓我們使兩者結合,使女權主義革命成為人道主義革命。對所有人類而言,我們將成為更好的家庭照料者及養家糊口者。你或許認為這不可能發生,但在我成長的社會中,我母親會為晚宴擺出熄菸的小容器,黑人和白人使用不同的洗手間,每個人都聲稱自己是異性戀。(笑聲)如今這一切不再是常態。爭取人類平等的革命確實能發生,它正在發生、它將會發生,它的進程及速度取決於我們。

 

謝謝。

 

(掌聲)

 

以下為系統擷取之英文原文

About this Talk

Public policy expert Anne-Marie Slaughter made waves with her 2012 article, "Why women still can't have it all." But really, is this only a question for women? Here Slaughter expands her ideas and explains why shifts in work culture, public policy and social mores can lead to more equality — for men, women, all of us.

About the Speaker

Anne-Marie Slaughter has exploded the conversation around women’s work-life balance. Full bio.

Transcript

So my moment of truth did not come all at once. In 2010, I had the chance to be considered for promotion from my job as director of policy planning at the U.S. State Department. This was my moment to lean in, to push myself forward for what are really only a handful of the very top foreign policy jobs, and I had just finished a big, 18-month project for Secretary Clinton, successfully, and I knew I could handle a bigger job.

The woman I thought I was would have said yes. But I had been commuting for two years between Washington and Princeton, New Jersey, where my husband and my two teenage sons lived, and it was not going well. I tried on the idea of eking out another two years in Washington, or maybe uprooting my sons from their school and my husband from his work and asking them to join me. But deep down, I knew that the right decision was to go home, even if I didn't fully recognize the woman who was making that choice.

That was a decision based on love and responsibility. I couldn't keep watching my oldest son make bad choices without being able to be there for him when and if he needed me. But the real change came more gradually. Over the next year, while my family was righting itself, I started to realize that even if I could go back into government, I didn't want to. I didn't want to miss the last five years that my sons were at home. I finally allowed myself to accept what was really most important to me, not what I was conditioned to want or maybe what I conditioned myself to want, and that decision led to a reassessment of the feminist narrative that I grew up with and have always championed.

I am still completely committed to the cause of male-female equality, but let's think about what that equality really means, and how best to achieve it. I always accepted the idea that the most respected and powerful people in our society are men at the top of their careers, so that the measure of male-female equality ought to be how many women are in those positions: prime ministers, presidents, CEOs, directors, managers, Nobel laureates, leaders. I still think we should do everything we possibly can to achieve that goal. But that's only half of real equality, and I now think we're never going to get there unless we recognize the other half. I suggest that real equality, full equality, does not just mean valuing women on male terms. It means creating a much wider range of equally respected choices for women and for men. And to get there, we have to change our workplaces, our policies and our culture.

In the workplace, real equality means valuing family just as much as work, and understanding that the two reinforce each other. As a leader and as a manager, I have always acted on the mantra, if family comes first, work does not come second -- life comes together. If you work for me, and you have a family issue, I expect you to attend to it, and I am confident, and my confidence has always been borne out, that the work will get done, and done better. Workers who have a reason to get home to care for their children or their family members are more focused, more efficient, more results-focused. And breadwinners who are also caregivers have a much wider range of experiences and contacts. Think about a lawyer who spends part of his time at school events for his kids talking to other parents. He's much more likely to bring in new clients for his firm than a lawyer who never leaves his office. And caregiving itself develops patience -- a lot of patience -- and empathy, creativity, resilience, adaptability. Those are all attributes that are ever more important in a high-speed, horizontal, networked global economy.

The best companies actually know this. The companies that win awards for workplace flexibility in the United States include some of our most successful corporations, and a 2008 national study on the changing workforce showed that employees in flexible and effective workplaces are more engaged with their work, they're more satisfied and more loyal, they have lower levels of stress and higher levels of mental health. And a 2012 study of employers showed that deep, flexible practices actually lowered operating costs and increased adaptability in a global service economy.

So you may think that the privileging of work over family is only an American problem. Sadly, though, the obsession with work is no longer a uniquely American disease. Twenty years ago, when my family first started going to Italy, we used to luxuriate in the culture of siesta. Siesta is not just about avoiding the heat of the day. It's actually just as much about embracing the warmth of a family lunch. Now, when we go, fewer and fewer businesses close for siesta, reflecting the advance of global corporations and 24-hour competition. So making a place for those we love is actually a global imperative.

In policy terms, real equality means recognizing that the work that women have traditionally done is just as important as the work that men have traditionally done, no matter who does it. Think about it: Breadwinning and caregiving are equally necessary for human survival. At least if we get beyond a barter economy, somebody has to earn an income and someone else has to convert that income to care and sustenance for loved ones.

Now most of you, when you hear me talk about breadwinning and caregiving, instinctively translate those categories into men's work and women's work. And we don't typically challenge why men's work is advantaged. But consider a same-sex couple like my friends Sarah and Emily. They're psychiatrists. They got married five years ago, and now they have two-year-old twins. They love being mothers, but they also love their work, and they're really good at what they do. So how are they going to divide up breadwinning and caregiving responsibilities? Should one of them stop working or reduce hours to be home? Or should they both change their practices so they can have much more flexible schedules? And what criteria should they use to make that decision? Is it who makes the most money or who is most committed to her career? Or who has the most flexible boss?

The same-sex perspective helps us see that juggling work and family are not women's problems, they're family problems. And Sarah and Emily are the lucky ones, because they have a choice about how much they want to work. Millions of men and women have to be both breadwinners and caregivers just to earn the income they need, and many of those workers are scrambling. They're patching together care arrangements that are inadequate and often actually unsafe. If breadwinning and caregiving are really equal, then why shouldn't a government invest as much in an infrastructure of care as the foundation of a healthy society as it invests in physical infrastructure as the backbone of a successful economy?

The governments that get it -- no surprises here -- the governments that get it, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, provide universal child care, support for caregivers at home, school and early childhood education, protections for pregnant women, and care for the elderly and the disabled. Those governments invest in that infrastructure the same way they invest in roads and bridges and tunnels and trains. Those societies also show you that breadwinning and caregiving reinforce each other. They routinely rank among the top 15 countries of the most globally competitive economies, but at the same time, they rank very high on the OECD Better Life Index. In fact, they rank higher than other governments, like my own, the U.S., or Switzerland, that have higher average levels of income but lower rankings on work-life balance.

So changing our workplaces and building infrastructures of care would make a big difference, but we're not going to get equally valued choices unless we change our culture, and the kind of cultural change required means re-socializing men. (Applause) Increasingly in developed countries, women are socialized to believe that our place is no longer only in the home, but men are actually still where they always were. Men are still socialized to believe that they have to be breadwinners, that to derive their self-worth from how high they can climb over other men on a career ladder. The feminist revolution still has a long way to go. It's certainly not complete. But 60 years after "The Feminine Mystique" was published, many women actually have more choices than men do. We can decide to be a breadwinner, a caregiver, or any combination of the two. When a man, on the other hand, decides to be a caregiver, he puts his manhood on the line. His friends may praise his decision, but underneath, they're scratching their heads. Isn't the measure of a man his willingness to compete with other men for power and prestige? And as many women hold that view as men do. We know that lots of women still judge the attractiveness of a man based in large part on how successful he is in his career. A woman can drop out of the work force and still be an attractive partner. For a man, that's a risky proposition. So as parents and partners, we should be socializing our sons and our husbands to be whatever they want to be, either caregivers or breadwinners. We should be socializing them to make caregiving cool for guys. (Applause)

I can almost hear lots of you thinking, "No way." But in fact, the change is actually already happening. At least in the United States, lots of men take pride in cooking, and frankly obsess over stoves. They are in the birthing rooms. They take paternity leave when they can. They can walk a baby or soothe a toddler just as well as their wives can, and they are increasingly doing much more of the housework. Indeed, there are male college students now who are starting to say, "I want to be a stay-at-home dad." That was completely unthinkable 50 or even 30 years ago. And in Norway, where men have an automatic three month's paternity leave, but they lose it if they decide not to take it, a high government official told me that companies are starting to look at prospective male employees and raise an eyebrow if they didn't in fact take their leave when they had kids. That means that it's starting to seem like a character defect not to want to be a fully engaged father.

So I was raised to believe that championing women's rights meant doing everything we could to get women to the top. And I still hope that I live long enough to see men and women equally represented at all levels of the work force. But I've come to believe that we have to value family every bit as much as we value work, and that we should entertain the idea that doing right by those we love will make all of us better at everything we do.

Thirty years ago, Carol Gilligan, a wonderful psychologist, studied adolescent girls and identified an ethic of care, an element of human nature every bit as important as the ethic of justice. It turns out that "you don't care" is just as much a part of who we are as "that's not fair." Bill Gates agrees. He argues that the two great forces of human nature are self-interest and caring for others. Let's bring them both together. Let's make the feminist revolution a humanist revolution. As whole human beings, we will be better caregivers and breadwinners. You may think that can't happen, but I grew up in a society where my mother put out small vases of cigarettes for dinner parties, where blacks and whites used separate bathrooms, and where everybody claimed to be heterosexual. Today, not so much. The revolution for human equality can happen. It is happening. It will happen. How far and how fast is up to us.

Thank you.

(Applause)


留下您對本課程的評論
標題:
您目前為非會員,留言名稱將顯示「匿名非會員」
只能進行20字留言

留言內容:

驗證碼請輸入3 + 1 =

標籤

現有標籤:1
新增標籤:


有關本課程的討論

目前暫無評論,快來留言吧!

Creative Commons授權條款 本站一切著作係採用 Creative Commons 授權條款授權。
協助推廣單位: