Marissa Mayer vs. Anne-Marie Slaughter

Anne-Marie Slaughter's article in the Atlantic "Why Women Still Can't Have it All" unleashed a lot of debates. She's certainly been very successful in her line of work, and she sensibly advocates for policy change to accommodate the challenge of motherhood. But  she also makes it clear that perhaps there is no real substitute for a mother at certain points of a kid's life. With some kids, it may be at the infant stage if the kid is premature or has some health issues. With others, it may be during the difficult teenage years as in Anne-Marie Slaughter's case. Those who completely outsource their kids to others or simply delegate them to grandparents sometimes have great luck in which case their delegates do a great job of raising the kids, as in the case of Katharine Graham's own parents. Well, let me qualify that statement by saying that Katharine Graham has turned out phenomenal, with her own siblings having various issues in their lives with their parents. But more often than not, these parents find themselves regretting later in life when the kids practically tell them that it's their fault not to have been there. 

Almost soon afterwards, we read about the high-profile appointment of Marissa Mayer as CEO of Yahoo!. Her first baby is due this October, and she made a point of telling the public that she will hardly take any time off and work through the maternity leave. That of course has elicited a lot of discussion, with some criticizing her for sending the wrong message, some applauding her courage, and still others wondering if she knows what she is going through. 

As for myself, I find myself feeling a bit ambivalent about Marissa Mayer's message. On the one hand, it is totally her own business how much time she wants to take off after giving birth, and surely she can afford the world's best nannies and housekeepers to do a much better job than she can in terms of childcare and housework. On the other hand, I feel slightly frustrated. 

I feel frustrated because sometimes I find myself compared to women who are struggling with a full-time job while taking care of two kids mostly by themselves, with hardly any hired help. Of course these women never think of comparing themselves to Marissa Mayer, because they know that they will never be promoted as fast as their male colleagues whose wives are also taking a slow pace at work. 

But I also feel frustrated because most other times I find myself compared (subconsciously or by lectures from others) to successful women like Marissa Mayer and Sheryl Sandberg, who of course are utterly amazing in their careers and have made it before they encounter motherhood. It would seem that I should be able to leave my son behind for extended period of time without worrying, but my nanny got paid a fraction of the super nannies of the rich, who presumably are not only incredibly experienced but also willing to go beyond the call of the duty if for no other reason but the ridiculously high salary. And by the way, my nanny got paid even a little higher than the average. But the key word is "average". 

Therefore, I have to say that Anne-Marie Slaughter does send the right message in her article in that she makes it clear that it is not a good idea to compare point by point what a super successful woman can do with her family after she's become super successful.  The fact that Marissa Mayer will plan to take very little time off is amazing, but the amazing part is due to her making it to the top of the corporate echelon. That is not something that anyone can accomplish. As she can afford the world's best team of nannies, nurses, tutors, child psychologists and housekeepers, perhaps the first few years of her kid's life should turn out better than most without her being around as much. In fact, these early advantages may prevent the troubles that Anne-Marie Slaughter's kids went through in their teenage years. After all, when her kids were little, she was working perhaps as hard as Marissa Mayer, but without the millions to afford a world-class professional team for the kids. 

Aging Gracefully

A while ago, a friend told me that her father was in critical condition at the hospital. Although he did recover from the worst of it, he has remained in poor health and even poorer spirit since. 

Then another friend spent several agonizing days waiting around at the hospital while her mother was doubling up in pain due to kidney stones. 

Several friends saw their parents pass in recent years. 

I called my mom up and urged her to take a vacation trip abroad this summer. My reasoning? Well, do everything you want to do NOW before it is too late. As usual, she gets the message, and immediately booked a trip to Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland. She would have wanted to go to England except that there are no tours available until after the London Olympics.  So next year she plans to take a trip to England. In between, she will take some shorter trips. On most days, she does housework,  runs errands, exercises, sees friends, goes to concerts and movies and tutors math a few times a week. She said that she had never been happier in her life until now. 

Aging gracefully can only happen if one can avoid the disgraceful consequence of constant sickness. 

From Eugene Meyer to Woody Allen

The other day, I opened up one of my favorite books for a re-read – Katharine Graham's "Personal History". She came from a distinguished family. Her father Eugene Meyer was a prominent businessman before he went into public service.  

While he was searching for his way after college, he came upon a book "The Map of Life" by William Edward Hartpole Lecky that suggested that "a man's life should be planned as a single whole in which each stage would be a prologue to the stage that followed". He then mapped out such a plan for himself, with the first 20 years assigned to education the second 20 years allocated to growth and experimentation, during which he will earn a living and start a family. The third 20 years will be devoted to public service, with him retiring at age 60 to age gracefully and help young people. Eventually he did live largely according to plan, until the age of 83.

There is a reason why reading this part the first time over a decade ago did not leave any lasting impression – I was too busy to really pause and think. Now that I am thinking, I realize that perhaps we all should have such a plan. As people live longer now and education takes longer, perhaps we should divide up our life in 25-year chunks instead of 20-year chunks. My own formal schooling did not end until I was 28 years old, and that's an average age for anyone who wants an advanced degree, not to mention the additional training required if one wants to get into academia. Based on this plan, I have less than a decade left for this "growth and experimentation" phase of my life! 

Of course everyone has different goals, interests and priorities and therefore each person's "plan" is different. For example, Woody Allen is 76 years old and is still making funny and romantic movies. Obviously for a genius like him, to go into public service will be an utter waste of his talent, so I hope that he makes movies all the way to the end, which could be another 20 years from now! 

In a documentary film on him, he was asked by some European reporters whether his viewpoints on death had changed over the years (considering that he showcased through his characters an excessive fear of death). He deadpans, "no, it has not changed. I am still completely against it." 

He portrayed a retired music industry executive who equated retirement to death in his latest movie "To Rome With Love", and I suppose that to the delight of all of us die-hard Woody Allen fans, it means that he will never retire. In his life there will be only two phases – the first 20 years learning to be a comedian and film-maker, and the rest devoted to films. 

My Un-scientific Experiment

If I had any remaining doubt that health really is the most important thing in life, the past few weeks have certainly eliminated that residual doubt. I was starting to feel lucky that Winston was disease free for over a month and did not catch the hand foot and mouth disease that apparently found its way to his daycare center, when he started having a pink eye followed by a lingering cold. Soon afterwards, he ran into the desk in the office and got a huge laceration on his forehead. Just when I thought that it was time for his cold to go away, he came down with a high fever and was diagnosed with a bacterial infection. A week into his antibiotics regimen, he came down with another cold with a racking cough. Needless to say, I have been rendered almost schizophrenic. 

As a scientist by training, I started looking for answers to his getting sick more often than others.  And precisely because I have been a scientist by training, I know all too well how insufficient science has been to answer questions about disease, health and immunity. What works for some people may not work for others, and of course strictly controlled experiments can never be carried out. Even if they could, they become meaningless precisely because they are too controlled and don't reflect the real life situation. Suffice to say that I have decided to carry on some experiments with an effort to improve Winston's health.  For now I am going to switch Winston to a diary free diet – I will not be military about it but he will not be drinking 20 ounce of milk plus 2 or 3 yogurt cups any more. Also, I gave him Manuka honey for the past two days and miraculously his cold is improving at a much faster pace than usual. Of course I could be hallucinating due to wishful thinking. Still, I feel that I have some actions to take for the next month or so to see if my little boy will benefit from this latest uncontrolled experiment. 

What I have noticed about scientists in general is their near religious belief in science. The fact that science cannot answer many questions does not seem to instill doubt in their minds when they don't see a proof that a certain regimen could lead to health benefits for certain people. Now isn't that unscientific? If we don't understand something, it does not mean that it is not true. It simply means that it MAY not be true. Somehow many scientists forget about it, and forget about the fact that there are always exceptions to the rule as well. 

Traditional Chinese medicine is perhaps the closest thing to personalized medicine, and surely the field is messy. Have there been miracles? Yes. Has  there been disappointment? Yes. In the case of miracles, it is personalized medicine done at its best without the practitioner understanding the scientific basis. In the case of disappointment, it is the practitioner trying to over-apply something that has only worked for a few people. 

In the case of Winston, I don't care to find out any scientific basis. I just want to find out whatever that works for him.