Let's take two women, starting equal in education and skill. One has three children, one has no children.

The former takes off a total of 2.4 years of FMLA, and various other days to watch sick children, or attend their plays and performances. The latter does not.

After 20 years, why should the women with no children, who has spent more than 10% more time working at the company, and missed far fewer days, and not had the rewarding experiences of watching children in plays, make the same money or hold the same position?

If I were the women with no children, I'd damn well expect to receive the promotion over the women with three children, because I would have done more work.

There's inherent value in spending family time, you don't get to have that value, and have equal value at work time over those who didn't receive the inherent value of family time.

... is that you stay at the top of the ladder by telling everyone else in the company that they have to sacrifice their families to get ahead.

Capitalism has been working with societal structures for a while now and the only people who ever seem satisfied are the insanely wealthy.

Industrialization atomized the family and rules of cooperation between genders became commodified.

To accept that there's something called "work-life balance" is to allow your thinking to be delimited by someone else's agenda right from the start.

It ain't the playa, it's the game y'all.

One woman, two women.

Why should I sacrifice my family for a corporation that will discard me like a piece of used kleenex the instant it's convenient to do so?

Anyhow, Jack Welch wants everyone beneath him working like slaves to improve his bottom line. Folks like that want to suck your life dry and spit out your husk when you're no longer useful. So of course he's going to crack the whip on all those uppity employees who imagine that they can have both kids and some semblance of a career. Regardless of their gender.

Or are they based on experience, judgment, and skill?

Suppose a woman with three children has sacrificed 3-4 years of her work life taking time off after childbirth, watching plays, helping with the PTA at school, etc.

Does anyone *really* think that after 20 years (where she's worked 16-17 years), she's less qualified than a childless woman who's worked 20?

Well maybe. And maybe not. But the fact that she's helped raise 3 kids has nothing to do with it.

Skill and experience are *not* to length of tenure.

People with a life tend to be better employees, anyway.

I was never on a management track, but until I had a child, I worked 90+ hour weeks and got plenty of sleep when I needed it. I had a child, stayed home for 18 months and went back to work and life, even with childcare, is far different as everything revolves around the child, not the job. My days are regular as I have to leave by a certain time every day to pick my daughter up from daycare lest she wind up at the local police station as an abandoned child. Sure, I can do business trips, but they require careful planning and a certain amount of guilt for leaving my husband alone in a 2-person job. I work in the evenings after she's asleep and on the weekends, but it's not the same as having every bit of energy and focus on the job like I used to.

Don't shoot the messenger, Jack Welch is spot on - the feminists were full of idealism and their own lofty goals when they filled women with the idea that women could do it all and have it all and not pay a price. Having children is a career in itself. Staying home for 18 months made it very clear to me that motherhood is the toughest job going. Even with childcare, you still have the child the other 16 hours of the day you aren't working and the weekends. Why should women expect that they can meet expectations, their own and others'. with two careers?

I do well enough with the day job, but when push comes to shove, the kid wins and I think that's what he was getting at and, really, what's wrong with that?

A buddy of mine, on getting his big-ticket law firm job: "Partner pulls me aside, and lays it out. You can make $250k+ a year, make partner, or you can watch your kids grow up. You choose."

As with most anything, if you aspire to be top dog, whether in the arts, business, whatever, there's usually a degree of self-absorption required. Basically, "You can be the best _______, or you can be a partner, parent, whatever." Unless "parent" or "partner" is what you insert in the blank.

Who wins, who loses, who pays the price, who gets ahead...These are all the things bobbing in the wake.

This has been and always will be the case.

... to the top echelons of a corporation must have some kind of personality disorder in the first place.

I'm a recently widowed man in the process figuring out how I'm going to balance work and family so I've been thinking about this a lot and I believe Jack Welch makes a valid point. I simply think it's difficult to balance a substantial job with a substantive home life. As one ascends the corporate ladder in a typical large company, responsibilities and expectations grow as do working hours and often the need to travel. I've seen people attempt to achieve balance, but what I usually see is people trying to cram too much activity into too little time.

In my new situation, I know I'll be more focused on home than ever before and will need to make some career sacrifices. I know I won't be able to consistently be there "in the clutch" as Jack puts it and I also know that will limit my opportunities.

Jack Welch rocks!

One is really into extreme sports. She takes time off work to go raft the Amazon, hike the Himalayas, etc. She has outside interests, so on Saturday at 1am she's out partying instead of working on the budget proposal. She gets hurt in a ski-jumping accident and misses *days* of work. When her company lays her off after 20 years, she launches her own business as an extreme sports trainer.

The other woman has no life and works overtime constantly. She has a heart attack at 53 and dies, thus sparing the company the necessity of funding her retirement.

Oh wait, these are actually two men!