I recently read an article titled "Why Women Still Can't Have It All". Our discussion this week on class, especially women in the "working-class", made me relate this article to the concepts. Anne-Marie Slaughter, the author, made a strong suggestion that family values need to be incorporated into the workplace. By placing a higher value on child-care needs over other activities, the employer is recognizing that the "mothers" in the company can be just as successful in the workplace, as the "marathon trainers" in the company. The word mother is part of the feminist value system, traits such as driven, is not a trait that we as a society attribute with the feminist word "mother". What we fail to realize is being a mother involves lots of skill sets that are used in the everyday work world, such as organized, and disciplined. Recognizing that mother, motherhood, and parenting while all apart of the feminist value system should not be looked down upon in the work place, rather it should be embraced. As someone interested in organizational communication in a workplace, I was extremely interested in what Slaughter said about how their has been research done to say that companies that have placed higher values on family and child-care have seen an economic boost, compared to those companies who don't. Somehow there needs to be a coexistence of the feminist word mother and a mother's attributes, with the employer's view of a "successful worker". Mass media is still struggling to show how women can have it all. While Roseanne's intention was to shed light on the true realities of a working-class woman, I felt that the show was depicting a working class mother that cannot have it all. Is the shows message worth the negative consequences that this may have had for women that watched this?