I'd like to tell Sheryl Sandberg to STFU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here...this is what she says about my criticism: "I know some believe that by focusing on what women can change themselves-pressing them to lean in-it seems like I am letting our institutions off the hook. Or even worse, they accuse me of blaming the victim. Far from blaming the victim, I believe that female leaders are the key to the solution."

Why not our male leaders? Why not the female rank and file? It's like she thinks only people like her are the solution.

I've posted this before, but it bears repeating. Statements like these would hold a lot more water if she were able to demonstrate that Facebook is some kind of leader in creating a positive workplace for women. As it stands, it seems at least just as unwelcoming to women as all the other SV giants.

Thanks for this and the previous post. Never saw that STEM campaign, but wow that's awful. Maybe a way to get more women to stay in STEM is to ensure stuff like this never, ever happens again:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/azeenghorayshi/how-harassment-stays-secret?utm_term=.qyONboZ6rR#.wh6lNGkKVp

Its worse.

Facebook is a leader in replacing US workers with foreign guest workers and with institutionalized age bias.

As COO she has primary responsibility on the culture and practice of Facebook in hiring. She is focusing on her own profit over helping others. Not a role model for my daughter, an example of someone motivated solely by self interest.

Facebook average age is 29 - https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2016/09/15/silicon-valleys-not-so-secret-bias-ageism/90120616/
H1B Dependent Employer (abuses H1B) - http://cis.org/Immigration-Maps/H1B-Dependent-Willful-Violator-Debarred

and there is no STEM crisis, there are plenty of STEM US workers, Facebook just wants to hire cheaper workers.

There is in fact a surplus of US workers for STEM:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/06/06/...

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/the-adminis...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/i...

Watch Dan Rather's Doc: No Thanks For Everything
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeoBWzIRuic

http://spectrum.ieee.org/static/the-stem-crisis-is...
The STEM Crisis is a Myth: An Ongoing Discussion
Throughout the month of September, we'll provide continuing coverage and debate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess that's why she turns me off. I *don't* think that women are are own worst enemies. I don't think women are under represented at the top levels of government and business because we fail to sit at the table, or doubt our own abilities, or are "leaving before we leave."

I think the problem is systemic, entrenched sexism. Making it an issue about what individual women do, and holding herself up as the kind of solution to the problem, just doesn't fly.

I get she wants to write a self-help kind of thing for women. But it comes across like that advertisement that featured young girls talking about how they wanted to be scientists, then noted that a small percentage make it. The ad said something like, "Change the World. Stay in STEM." Like putting it all on these girls--that they needed to stay in STEM and change the world. Why not a message more like, "Hey, older people in power and especially men, change the world so that these girls are ABLE to stay in STEM."

Compare Sheryl Stanberg's books to, say, Barbara Ehrenrich's Nickel and Dimed: On Not Getting by in America, that showed how hard working, well-meaning people (and lots of women) were being systematically screwed.

If your message is that women need to "lean in" or that women are failing to make their partners partners, you are suggesting the problem is not, for example, the total lack of mandated maternity leave and time off to care for a young child.

She is not suggesting that women march in the streets and demand these things, is she? Instead she is talking about how, oh, women start pulling away from work when they merely think of having a child. And how oh so wrong that is.

I feel bad about her husband. But she just seems so tone-deaf to me.

Well said. Very well said.

[Anonymous]

My favorite headline of all time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need more Sheryl Sandbergs in this world, from all backgrounds. And we all need to look for them and lift them up. What is the point in tearing her down if she's sharing her truth? If it doesn't resonate with you, change the channel or pick up another book.

I don't think we need more Sheryl Sandbergs. Do we want young women to seek out their "daddy/mentor", like she did. Decrepit old Larry Summers, president of Harvard couldn't resist helping this bright young thing, a Harvard student, mentoring her out of the goodness of his heart. If Sheryl clawed her way up without Lar Bear, I would respect her. She's a fraud and she will damage FB before it's over.

For many women Sheryl Sanberg's age, there were only older men as mentors. You see older women in the workplacd, but many of them didn't return to work until after their kids were grown or if they went through a divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need more Sheryl Sandbergs in this world, from all backgrounds. And we all need to look for them and lift them up. What is the point in tearing her down if she's sharing her truth? If it doesn't resonate with you, change the channel or pick up another book.

I don't think we need more Sheryl Sandbergs. Do we want young women to seek out their "daddy/mentor", like she did. Decrepit old Larry Summers, president of Harvard couldn't resist helping this bright young thing, a Harvard student, mentoring her out of the goodness of his heart. If Sheryl clawed her way up without Lar Bear, I would respect her. She's a fraud and she will damage FB before it's over.

For many women Sheryl Sanberg's age, there were only older men as mentors. You see older women in the workplacd, but many of them didn't return to work until after their kids were grown or if they went through a divorce.

Yep. I'm her age, and I've tried to search for years for a woman mentor in my industry. There are none. So, I've latched onto smart, fair, ethical, successful bosses or others I could find- they are all men. If I didn't, I'd still be a staff person. Instead, I'm now upper management, and trying to do a better job at helping young women in my business- but only if they are looking for help. I don't have time at work for anyone (men or women) who aren't serious about the

[Anonymous]

Wow, so many of you on this thread are nasty and vile. You want to punch her? Get a grip on yourself.

Lean In is about how to get more women to upper management and C-level position, and the things she's seen other women do that keep themselves out of the running for those positions.

So sit at the fucking table. Make your husband participate and be actively responsible for your family. And don't ignore your career path because you think it'll be too hard when you're pregnant.

Those are the things she's noticed. If you're doing them already, great. Pat yourself on the back and move on. If you're not doing those things, and you CAN do them, do them. Move up. Get paid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, so many of you on this thread are nasty and vile. You want to punch her? Get a grip on yourself.

Lean In is about how to get more women to upper management and C-level position, and the things she's seen other women do that keep themselves out of the running for those positions.

So sit at the fucking table. Make your husband participate and be actively responsible for your family. And don't ignore your career path because you think it'll be too hard when you're pregnant.

Those are the things she's noticed. If you're doing them already, great. Pat yourself on the back and move on. If you're not doing those things, and you CAN do them, do them. Move up. Get paid.

[Anonymous]

She's back to lobby for more foreign workers

Pelosi says it is un American to hire US citizens

Zuckerberg and sandberg and Weinstein and madoff

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/technology/sheryl-sandberg-facebook-ads.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I leaned in any more I would be planking. If she really wanted to help women, should would help some women in her company to succeed without leaning in so hard (like white guys do).

I like this! In all fairness, I didn't read beyond page 2 of the comments but this resonated with me. I like the idea of "leaning in", of women who want to focus on their careers being able to reach their professional goals but I also think that there needs to be a systemic change in order to make that happen. The solution isn't to drop MORE work on women. We should be working on ways to let women do LESS so they can reach their goals MORE. I think that would be more helpful and meaningful. Women are already taking on the lions share of household work "their second shift" at home after working their butts off at work. There's this newer concept that women also take on bulk the unseen emotional work on balancing everything: balancing all family appointments, vacations, childcare, schooling, health issues, ect....which leads to stressed and anxious women who don't get opportunities to just relax as much as men do.

[Anonymous]

I never really thought ‘Lean In’ was for every woman. Did she ever say that? I don’t really think she thought her life was in anyway remotely similar to the lady who works at Wal-Mart as a cashier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I leaned in any more I would be planking. If she really wanted to help women, should would help some women in her company to succeed without leaning in so hard (like white guys do).

I like this! In all fairness, I didn't read beyond page 2 of the comments but this resonated with me. I like the idea of "leaning in", of women who want to focus on their careers being able to reach their professional goals but I also think that there needs to be a systemic change in order to make that happen. The solution isn't to drop MORE work on women. We should be working on ways to let women do LESS so they can reach their goals MORE. I think that would be more helpful and meaningful. Women are already taking on the lions share of household work "their second shift" at home after working their butts off at work. There's this newer concept that women also take on bulk the unseen emotional work on balancing everything: balancing all family appointments, vacations, childcare, schooling, health issues, ect....which leads to stressed and anxious women who don't get opportunities to just relax as much as men do.

FFS read the book. She addresses this - women marry real partners and society needs to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I leaned in any more I would be planking. If she really wanted to help women, should would help some women in her company to succeed without leaning in so hard (like white guys do).

I like this! In all fairness, I didn't read beyond page 2 of the comments but this resonated with me. I like the idea of "leaning in", of women who want to focus on their careers being able to reach their professional goals but I also think that there needs to be a systemic change in order to make that happen. The solution isn't to drop MORE work on women. We should be working on ways to let women do LESS so they can reach their goals MORE. I think that would be more helpful and meaningful. Women are already taking on the lions share of household work "their second shift" at home after working their butts off at work. There's this newer concept that women also take on bulk the unseen emotional work on balancing everything: balancing all family appointments, vacations, childcare, schooling, health issues, ect....which leads to stressed and anxious women who don't get opportunities to just relax as much as men do.

As a woman in tech, I find that I do this at work as well. Only technical woman on my team, and I find myself having to manage the emotional baggage of both the people who work for me and the people I work for. For how "rational" they are supposed to be, they are big emotional messes who have difficulty getting out of the way of their feelings to do work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess that's why she turns me off. I *don't* think that women are are own worst enemies. I don't think women are under represented at the top levels of government and business because we fail to sit at the table, or doubt our own abilities, or are "leaving before we leave."

I think the problem is systemic, entrenched sexism. Making it an issue about what individual women do, and holding herself up as the kind of solution to the problem, just doesn't fly.

I get she wants to write a self-help kind of thing for women. But it comes across like that advertisement that featured young girls talking about how they wanted to be scientists, then noted that a small percentage make it. The ad said something like, "Change the World. Stay in STEM." Like putting it all on these girls--that they needed to stay in STEM and change the world. Why not a message more like, "Hey, older people in power and especially men, change the world so that these girls are ABLE to stay in STEM."

Compare Sheryl Stanberg's books to, say, Barbara Ehrenrich's Nickel and Dimed: On Not Getting by in America, that showed how hard working, well-meaning people (and lots of women) were being systematically screwed.

If your message is that women need to "lean in" or that women are failing to make their partners partners, you are suggesting the problem is not, for example, the total lack of mandated maternity leave and time off to care for a young child.

She is not suggesting that women march in the streets and demand these things, is she? Instead she is talking about how, oh, women start pulling away from work when they merely think of having a child. And how oh so wrong that is.

I feel bad about her husband. But she just seems so tone-deaf to me.

Well said. Very well said.

Again - did you read the book? She addresses these systematic issues, but until that is fixed one must live in reality and play the hand you are given. There are certain things you can control - your partner pick, taking opportunities to sit at the table when they arise, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess that's why she turns me off. I *don't* think that women are are own worst enemies. I don't think women are under represented at the top levels of government and business because we fail to sit at the table, or doubt our own abilities, or are "leaving before we leave."

I think the problem is systemic, entrenched sexism. Making it an issue about what individual women do, and holding herself up as the kind of solution to the problem, just doesn't fly.

I get she wants to write a self-help kind of thing for women. But it comes across like that advertisement that featured young girls talking about how they wanted to be scientists, then noted that a small percentage make it. The ad said something like, "Change the World. Stay in STEM." Like putting it all on these girls--that they needed to stay in STEM and change the world. Why not a message more like, "Hey, older people in power and especially men, change the world so that these girls are ABLE to stay in STEM."

Compare Sheryl Stanberg's books to, say, Barbara Ehrenrich's Nickel and Dimed: On Not Getting by in America, that showed how hard working, well-meaning people (and lots of women) were being systematically screwed.

If your message is that women need to "lean in" or that women are failing to make their partners partners, you are suggesting the problem is not, for example, the total lack of mandated maternity leave and time off to care for a young child.

She is not suggesting that women march in the streets and demand these things, is she? Instead she is talking about how, oh, women start pulling away from work when they merely think of having a child. And how oh so wrong that is.

I feel bad about her husband. But she just seems so tone-deaf to me.

Well said. Very well said.

Again - did you read the book? She addresses these systematic issues, but until that is fixed one must live in reality and play the hand you are given. There are certain things you can control - your partner pick, taking opportunities to sit at the table when they arise, etc.

Work hard and hope for systematic change? This sounds so inadequate.

I’ve met Sheryl and while she is not a bad person, her strongest attribute is cultivating the press and positive publicity. She is also a workaholic. That and plenty of luck got her where she is today,

Look, she has gotten you to buy a book ghost written by someone else and tout platitudes with almost no effort beyond some tv interviews, and Facebook posts.

[Anonymous]

Sheryl was in DC this week, I hoped to cross paths. if I ever get the chance to meet her I have a monologue ready to set her straight. She has done little to help women, she could lean in a lot more to help women.