I'd like to tell Sheryl Sandberg to STFU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a man, I found the book helpful to realizing some of my own blind spots with respect to female colleagues and also to making sure that I am a "real partner" to my wife and share the household duties 50/50. These aren't revolutionary concepts, and no she isn't exactly breaking new ground. But I thought the book did a good job of highlighting some of the imbalances a lot of well-intentioned men are sometimes oblivious to. It was something that helped me learn and grow.

I honestly didn't find the book preachy or grating like so many of you obviously did. I don't think she ever said anything like "success is easy if you just do 1, 2, and 3. I interpreted her message more as "These are some obstacles that ambitious, driven women are facing in today's workplace. Here are some strategies/devices to deal with them."

Did the book solve all of women's problems? No. Was it a useful contribution? Yes.

It is so easy to criticize and condemn. It's much harder to do something constructive.

I'm glad that this book was helpful to you, and I think that her status probably does make this book more accessible to people who wouldn't otherwise examine these issues.

But this jab is unwarranted. Many of her sharpest critics are the people who did the hard work of improving workplace culture for all women. These are women, myself included, who have advocated for more fair policies sometimes at the risk of their own careers. And always on top of their day jobs. I'm also pretty privileged both through my elite education and through the fact that I happen to be exceptionally good at what I do. But if it weren't for these, doing things like promoting well researched practices for making hiring less biased would be enough for some employers to make me a target. I've also made it a point to work for companies where the executives at least viewed their employees as humans, and my privilege is part of why I've always had that option.

And again, I think writing this book is also a contribution that few other women are well-positioned to make. But she should have done a better job of giving credit to the work of others' that got her to her position and who continue to improve workplace environments instead of just admonish women for needing to do more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a man, I found the book helpful to realizing some of my own blind spots with respect to female colleagues and also to making sure that I am a "real partner" to my wife and share the household duties 50/50. These aren't revolutionary concepts, and no she isn't exactly breaking new ground. But I thought the book did a good job of highlighting some of the imbalances a lot of well-intentioned men are sometimes oblivious to. It was something that helped me learn and grow.

I honestly didn't find the book preachy or grating like so many of you obviously did. I don't think she ever said anything like "success is easy if you just do 1, 2, and 3. I interpreted her message more as "These are some obstacles that ambitious, driven women are facing in today's workplace. Here are some strategies/devices to deal with them."

Did the book solve all of women's problems? No. Was it a useful contribution? Yes.

It is so easy to criticize and condemn. It's much harder to do something constructive.

I'm glad that this book was helpful to you, and I think that her status probably does make this book more accessible to people who wouldn't otherwise examine these issues.

But this jab is unwarranted. Many of her sharpest critics are the people who did the hard work of improving workplace culture for all women. These are women, myself included, who have advocated for more fair policies sometimes at the risk of their own careers. And always on top of their day jobs. I'm also pretty privileged both through my elite education and through the fact that I happen to be exceptionally good at what I do. But if it weren't for these, doing things like promoting well researched practices for making hiring less biased would be enough for some employers to make me a target. I've also made it a point to work for companies where the executives at least viewed their employees as humans, and my privilege is part of why I've always had that option.

And again, I think writing this book is also a contribution that few other women are well-positioned to make. But she should have done a better job of giving credit to the work of others' that got her to her position and who continue to improve workplace environments instead of just admonish women for needing to do more.

Thank you. There is room for us to be grateful for your contributions, without tearing down Sandberg's. People are on this thread literally saying Sandberg should "STFU", that she's an "uppity bitch, and that they'd like to punch her in the face. Yikes! That is pure hostility and negativity, and certainly not a constructive contribution.

People should feel free to critique the ideas. But the type of discussion in this thread is not quite that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is so easy to criticize and condemn. It's much harder to do something constructive.

I'm glad that this book was helpful to you, and I think that her status probably does make this book more accessible to people who wouldn't otherwise examine these issues.

But this jab is unwarranted. Many of her sharpest critics are the people who did the hard work of improving workplace culture for all women. These are women, myself included, who have advocated for more fair policies sometimes at the risk of their own careers. And always on top of their day jobs. I'm also pretty privileged both through my elite education and through the fact that I happen to be exceptionally good at what I do. But if it weren't for these, doing things like promoting well researched practices for making hiring less biased would be enough for some employers to make me a target. I've also made it a point to work for companies where the executives at least viewed their employees as humans, and my privilege is part of why I've always had that option.

And again, I think writing this book is also a contribution that few other women are well-positioned to make. But she should have done a better job of giving credit to the work of others' that got her to her position and who continue to improve workplace environments instead of just admonish women for needing to do more.

Thank you. There is room for us to be grateful for your contributions, without tearing down Sandberg's. People are on this thread literally saying Sandberg should "STFU", that she's an "uppity bitch, and that they'd like to punch her in the face. Yikes! That is pure hostility and negativity, and certainly not a constructive contribution.

People should feel free to critique the ideas. But the type of discussion in this thread is not quite that.

Fair enough. And I don't think that kind of violent language is particularly helpful. But I do think it's worth understanding that some people's violent reaction stems from the fact that she presents herself as the first person who's ever thought of much of what she's saying. There are people who take that as an insult and dismissive of what they've worked hard to do.

And I would also suspect that there is resentment among people who have climbed the ranks while doing everything in their power to bring others with them that she's getting so much notoreity standing on their shoulders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm torn. I agree with some of what she has to say in Lean In particularly the parts before having kids. The parts about after having kids really only appeal if you want a certain type of job and family life (two nannies, chef, driver, etc). I was close to being that ambitious and admire those who are, but it isn't for me.

I also am extremely close with multiple people who have worked for her fairly high up at FB. While she is super smart and can be quite charming, she also can be quite nasty and is only forgiving to those with families if they are her pets (there's a joke there about getting a new FOSS - friend of Sheryl Sandberg - installed over you). I know at least two people who had a "no kids while at Facebook" rule because the ability to "lean in" and be a parent was limited to a select few (i.e., not even Zuck's sister). Doing the kind of job she does also requires incredible resources at home and sacrifices in terms of time with your kids, and I don't think she was candid about that.

I feel terribly about the loss of her husband, who was by all accounts a terrific guy. But she's a mixed bag for a lot of reasons.

I have heard simlar and have met her more than once socially, i do believe that she honestly wants to help people, but is clueless about how much her life differs from even other successful upper class peers. She travels constantly and often without her children. The constant self promotion is annoyin, but ahe is a master at marketing herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like her, and I liked Lean In.

Yes, it doesn't speak for everyone, but it spoke to me. I'm tired of people blaming other people for not fully encapsulating every possible experience women of any age, color, income, and profession may struggle with. This would be an impossible task for many.

I just downloaded "Drop the Ball" which is about a black working mom's experience. She is sharing her experience as a well educated professional woman in a dual income HH, but didn't have the wealth of Sheryl. I'm interested to hear what she has to say. I like reading many different perspectives and I'm not sure why one person has to have the answers for everyone at all stages of their life.

"WAH! SS says partners are important to working moms successes! But I'm a single mom!!!!!!!!!!!"

Well okay, find a different role model, Find a single mom and take her advice.

Yes. Good post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm torn. I agree with some of what she has to say in Lean In particularly the parts before having kids. The parts about after having kids really only appeal if you want a certain type of job and family life (two nannies, chef, driver, etc). I was close to being that ambitious and admire those who are, but it isn't for me.

I also am extremely close with multiple people who have worked for her fairly high up at FB. While she is super smart and can be quite charming, she also can be quite nasty and is only forgiving to those with families if they are her pets (there's a joke there about getting a new FOSS - friend of Sheryl Sandberg - installed over you). I know at least two people who had a "no kids while at Facebook" rule because the ability to "lean in" and be a parent was limited to a select few (i.e., not even Zuck's sister). Doing the kind of job she does also requires incredible resources at home and sacrifices in terms of time with your kids, and I don't think she was candid about that.

I feel terribly about the loss of her husband, who was by all accounts a terrific guy. But she's a mixed bag for a lot of reasons.

I have heard simlar and have met her more than once socially, i do believe that she honestly wants to help people, but is clueless about how much her life differs from even other successful upper class peers. She travels constantly and often without her children. The constant self promotion is annoyin, but ahe is a master at marketing herself.

This bothers me a bit. There are only so many hours in a day. Losing a parent as a child changes the course of your life. Btdt. I just don't see how she can be there for her kids as they deal with their grief, while still "leaning in", working, writing books, and dating. That's the part that makes me question her perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm torn. I agree with some of what she has to say in Lean In particularly the parts before having kids. The parts about after having kids really only appeal if you want a certain type of job and family life (two nannies, chef, driver, etc). I was close to being that ambitious and admire those who are, but it isn't for me.

I also am extremely close with multiple people who have worked for her fairly high up at FB. While she is super smart and can be quite charming, she also can be quite nasty and is only forgiving to those with families if they are her pets (there's a joke there about getting a new FOSS - friend of Sheryl Sandberg - installed over you). I know at least two people who had a "no kids while at Facebook" rule because the ability to "lean in" and be a parent was limited to a select few (i.e., not even Zuck's sister). Doing the kind of job she does also requires incredible resources at home and sacrifices in terms of time with your kids, and I don't think she was candid about that.

I feel terribly about the loss of her husband, who was by all accounts a terrific guy. But she's a mixed bag for a lot of reasons.

I have heard simlar and have met her more than once socially, i do believe that she honestly wants to help people, but is clueless about how much her life differs from even other successful upper class peers. She travels constantly and often without her children. The constant self promotion is annoyin, but ahe is a master at marketing herself.

This bothers me a bit. There are only so many hours in a day. Losing a parent as a child changes the course of your life. Btdt. I just don't see how she can be there for her kids as they deal with their grief, while still "leaning in", working, writing books, and dating. That's the part that makes me question her perspective.

Well I think she is doing some good for the world. I'm grateful there are women out there who will sacrifice time with their children for the greater good. I'm not one of those women, so I'm glad they are out there. If every mom cut back dramatically, it would be even more of a man's world than it already is. I think Mark Z is seriously considering running for office and I think she is helping to lay the groundwork. She has done a lot of good for women internationally and women in tech. She did take some time after the death of her husband, but I mean, he died what 2-3 years ago now? Her children are likely thriving in their routine, and i'm sure have loving caregivers who help when she is away.

Again, this lifestyle is not for me, but I don't want every women who has or wants kids to think they can't be a leader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see why she annoys people. But I also she's calling out some pretty real shit and people don't like hearing it. The idea that who you marry will be the most important decision you make in terms of your career couldn't be more spot on.

That's a fact. It reminds me of my former boss who is now in very high up executive position in the finance. When I worked for her, she was married and so was our big boss. She was sleeping with him. After they divorced, she married the big boss - sort of upgraded her husband and her career took off like a shooting star. She looks really successful, but what she did to get there is sick. I wouldn't want my daughter to get career advice from her.

Wow, how irrelevant. So you know a woman who slept with a married man and ultimately married him which helped her career. I know you know this, but that's not the point Sheryl Sandberg was making in the least.

I don't think it is irrelevant. Even if women aren't sleeping with the boss, we always run the risk of people thinking we are. And many male managers are reluctant to mentor women because they are afraid they will be accused of harassment or simply because they don't know how. THe women who do sleep with the boss and then get ahead make it harder for the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

NP here. I think it is worth noting that although there have been a few harsh comments, this thread has risen above most threads of this vein. I've enjoyed the thoughtful debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will probably should bad, but to be honest, I give her a bit of side-eye for dating less than a year after her husband died. Her kids were young, I just can't see having the bandwidth for that on top of her job and her kids. There's a lot to be said for getting through a full year, and the grief that comes with anniversaries and such. I lost my mom young, maybe that's why it bugs me.

Wait, what? I know I waste a lot of time on crap (DCUM, TV, reading, cooking) but how can she be an executive at Facebook, a parent, write a new book, and date all at the same time? Suggests to me a lot of outsourcing. When does she spend time with her kids? And what happens when they grow up and have to learn that not everyone's on the payroll and therefore at their beck and call.

[Anonymous]

Don't be so harsh pp and mind your own business. I don't care for her but she can do what she wants in her private life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This bothers me a bit. There are only so many hours in a day. Losing a parent as a child changes the course of your life. Btdt. I just don't see how she can be there for her kids as they deal with their grief, while still "leaning in", working, writing books, and dating. That's the part that makes me question her perspective.

I'm with you. Her first book didn't bother me the way this one does - maybe because this time around the book feels like "capitalizing on the tragedy" in almost narcissistic sense... It's been less than 2 years and she really has all that "free time" to first write and now promote this book on every channel and news outlet? If she just wanted to "share" with others in the similar situation why not use her own platform i.e. post on Facebook?
And, the whole dating thing... trying not to judge but well, just hope her kids are doing ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm torn. I agree with some of what she has to say in Lean In particularly the parts before having kids. The parts about after having kids really only appeal if you want a certain type of job and family life (two nannies, chef, driver, etc). I was close to being that ambitious and admire those who are, but it isn't for me.

I also am extremely close with multiple people who have worked for her fairly high up at FB. While she is super smart and can be quite charming, she also can be quite nasty and is only forgiving to those with families if they are her pets (there's a joke there about getting a new FOSS - friend of Sheryl Sandberg - installed over you). I know at least two people who had a "no kids while at Facebook" rule because the ability to "lean in" and be a parent was limited to a select few (i.e., not even Zuck's sister). Doing the kind of job she does also requires incredible resources at home and sacrifices in terms of time with your kids, and I don't think she was candid about that.

I feel terribly about the loss of her husband, who was by all accounts a terrific guy. But she's a mixed bag for a lot of reasons.

I have heard simlar and have met her more than once socially, i do believe that she honestly wants to help people, but is clueless about how much her life differs from even other successful upper class peers. She travels constantly and often without her children. The constant self promotion is annoyin, but ahe is a master at marketing herself.

This bothers me a bit. There are only so many hours in a day. Losing a parent as a child changes the course of your life. Btdt. I just don't see how she can be there for her kids as they deal with their grief, while still "leaning in", working, writing books, and dating. That's the part that makes me question her perspective.

Well I think she is doing some good for the world. I'm grateful there are women out there who will sacrifice time with their children for the greater good. I'm not one of those women, so I'm glad they are out there. If every mom cut back dramatically, it would be even more of a man's world than it already is. I think Mark Z is seriously considering running for office and I think she is helping to lay the groundwork. She has done a lot of good for women internationally and women in tech. She did take some time after the death of her husband, but I mean, he died what 2-3 years ago now? Her children are likely thriving in their routine, and i'm sure have loving caregivers who help when she is away.

Again, this lifestyle is not for me, but I don't want every women who has or wants kids to think they can't be a leader.

I see it differently -- I think her willingness to put her kid son the back burner (or so it would seem) makes it harder for women who work and still want to see and spend meaningful time with their kids. She sets and unreasonable and unrealistic "standard" that seems a lot more like what many men are expected to do (and often are able to do either because they have a wife who handles the domestic front or because they have the money to hire a bevy of care takers).

I don't want to hire people to do everything with my kids, but I'd also like to be able to succeed in a fulfilling and satisfying job. So far, I haven't figured out how to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This bothers me a bit. There are only so many hours in a day. Losing a parent as a child changes the course of your life. Btdt. I just don't see how she can be there for her kids as they deal with their grief, while still "leaning in", working, writing books, and dating. That's the part that makes me question her perspective.

Well I think she is doing some good for the world. I'm grateful there are women out there who will sacrifice time with their children for the greater good. I'm not one of those women, so I'm glad they are out there. If every mom cut back dramatically, it would be even more of a man's world than it already is. I think Mark Z is seriously considering running for office and I think she is helping to lay the groundwork. She has done a lot of good for women internationally and women in tech. She did take some time after the death of her husband, but I mean, he died what 2-3 years ago now? Her children are likely thriving in their routine, and i'm sure have loving caregivers who help when she is away.

Again, this lifestyle is not for me, but I don't want every women who has or wants kids to think they can't be a leader.
Are you a woman in tech? I am. I don't think she's done much for women in tech specifically, but I'd be interested if you have a counter-perspective on this. I also think it's disingenuous for her to present herself as a "woman in tech" in the same way that those of us in technical parts of tech companies are.

I'm also curious what qualifications you think Mark Z. has for political office. I don't see it, myself.

[Anonymous]

PP, commit to working no more than 45 hours a week. Get a short commute. I have a satisfying and well paid job and a good relationship with my teens. Takes a lot of luck, of course.