Lean-In Circles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is "lean in" new? I remeber in the 70's when my mom went back to work (and I became a latch key kid) because she was told she could "have it all."

I haven't read the book (not like most of you have, either) but the concept resonates with me because I went to a women's college and saw firsthand how women hold themselves back even in the abselce of institutional barriers. As I understand it, that's what "leaning in" is about. Not "having it all," but having enough confidence to not sell yourself short. I don't know a single woman at any level of success who couldn't use reminding about that and I work with very confident women at the top levels of my fed agency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is "lean in" new? I remeber in the 70's when my mom went back to work (and I became a latch key kid) because she was told she could "have it all."

I haven't read the book (not like most of you have, either) but the concept resonates with me because I went to a women's college and saw firsthand how women hold themselves back even in the abselce of institutional barriers. As I understand it, that's what "leaning in" is about. Not "having it all," but having enough confidence to not sell yourself short. I don't know a single woman at any level of success who couldn't use reminding about that and I work with very confident women at the top levels of my fed agency.

I am going to read the book. My understanding is that lean in is new, because your partner is supposed to lean out some in order for you to balance. Your kids are still being cared for, but it doesn't assume that the mother is going to run to doctor’s appointment and pick up sick kids. Similarly on the work side, the more than women lean in for new projects and management opportunities, the more men will be able to lean out (at work) slightly and be better equipped time wise to lean-in at their own homes. The overall gist is to shifting the balance of men-women working and home relationships.

I'd love to join a lean-in circle, but I have to finish my Master’s program first. One step at a time...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Raise your hand if you have worked with Sheryl.

I have. I know her values and personality. Her "Lean-In" philosophy is not supposed to be applied to most women. She only wants it applied to Ivy educated, upper bracket women.

I will not join a "lean-in" circle. We need more institutional support and less finger waging.

And exactly how are you going to get 'institutional support' during your career? What are you doing for YOU?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is "lean in" new? I remeber in the 70's when my mom went back to work (and I became a latch key kid) because she was told she could "have it all."

I guess your dad didn't "lean in" at home, eh?

[Anonymous]

At 25-40 hours a week you can do both career and family. But, anything more the kids will truly suffer.

I am working up a theory!

The optimal TOTAL working hours of BOTH PARENTS is around 80 hours a week.

So it's do-able if both partners work 40 hours or so.

But if one partner has a regular 40+ job, the other will need to work less to compensate at home.

I think this is the point where you see women leaving the paid workforce - their partners are working too many 40+ hour weeks, and their own job isn't flexible to go enough below 40 to get their combined family working hours below 80.

80 is the magic number!

What do you all think?

[Anonymous]

You're wrong. My DH spends more time with our children because I work 45 to 50 or even 55 hours a week some weeks. It doesn't HAVE to be all mom all the time, especially if you have boys.

Disagree with "especially if you have boys." Research has shown that a predictor for girl's success is her relationship with her dad.

My DH has twice pitched in with our girls when I "leaned in" and my career took precedence. He was home PT with our older daughter from age 3 months to 18 months. He was home with our 2 girls FT for 2 years (younger daughter ages 2-4; older daughter ages 5-7).

I love the close relationship that they have. But I will admit it was hard in the beginning to "let" DH take over the "special place" of being the at-home parent. You have to let go of the way you would do it, and let your DH find his own way of doing things. Many women have great difficulties doing this.

Like a PP, I also attended a single-sex school (pre-college). I haven't read the SS book, but I have heard her TED talk. I totally hear her message - I feel like she speaks to me. And I don't feel like she is telling me that I'm supposed to work 80+ hours per week and want to be CEO at the expense of everything else. To me, it's the same message that I got in single sex school - don't discount yourself. In an all-girls school, the best kid in science and math is always a girl. And that is empowering - to have that feel natural. Make sure the choices you are making are your choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: You're wrong. My DH spends more time with our children because I work 45 to 50 or even 55 hours a week some weeks. It doesn't HAVE to be all mom all the time, especially if you have boys.

Disagree with "especially if you have boys." Research has shown that a predictor for girl's success is her relationship with her dad.

My DH has twice pitched in with our girls when I "leaned in" and my career took precedence. He was home PT with our older daughter from age 3 months to 18 months. He was home with our 2 girls FT for 2 years (younger daughter ages 2-4; older daughter ages 5-7).

I love the close relationship that they have. But I will admit it was hard in the beginning to "let" DH take over the "special place" of being the at-home parent. You have to let go of the way you would do it, and let your DH find his own way of doing things. Many women have great difficulties doing this.

Like a PP, I also attended a single-sex school (pre-college). I haven't read the SS book, but I have heard her TED talk. I totally hear her message - I feel like she speaks to me. And I don't feel like she is telling me that I'm supposed to work 80+ hours per week and want to be CEO at the expense of everything else. To me, it's the same message that I got in single sex school - don't discount yourself. In an all-girls school, the best kid in science and math is always a girl. And that is empowering - to have that feel natural. Make sure the choices you are making are your choices.

[Anonymous]

can't figure out the quoting mechanism

[Anonymous]

I work 45 hours a week, 50 with commute. DH works 55 hours a week, including commute. It's the max feasible, for us, and we have older children.

[Anonymous]

I guess I should also lean in by making the most of the time I am actually in the office. Lean out of DCUM, and into more work responsibilities.

[Anonymous]

I heard SS on Diane Rehm last week, and I have not read the book. I am not sure I agree with her premise or even that she has the cred to say what she is saying, given the leg up she got at Harvard with LS. However....

What I heard her say was we should let women choose what works for them and stop criticizing and start supporting each other. On this point, I agree!

All you need to do is read this thread to understand how women snark and criticize each other rather than being supportive. DCUM is a shining example of what SS thinks is wrong with women.

[Anonymous]

I would love to create a burn-in circle. We all bring copies of her book (because no way I'm giving her a cent by buying this crap) and dance around the resulting bonfire. Kids welcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it would be more accurate to call it Cashing In (at the expense of gullible women)

this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is "lean in" new? I remeber in the 70's when my mom went back to work (and I became a latch key kid) because she was told she could "have it all."

I haven't read the book (not like most of you have, either) but the concept resonates with me because I went to a women's college and saw firsthand how women hold themselves back even in the abselce of institutional barriers. As I understand it, that's what "leaning in" is about. Not "having it all,"but having enough confidence to not sell yourself short. I don't know a single woman at any level of success who couldn't use reminding about that and I work with very confident women at the top levels of my fed agency.

From what I've read, this is her central thesis. But, what drives me absolutely crazy is that confidence is nowhere near enough for success. I'm SS's age and can honestly say I've leaned-in my entire career and gotten little for it. I mean, I am NO wallflower. The response to that confidence has either been aggression and anger (usually from other women) and/or patronization or not being taken seriously (usually by men). The problem is NOT a lack of confidence or women not "leaning in" but the fact that I always have to be twice as good as a man to be taken half as seriously. I call it "implied incompetence." Simply by virtue of the fact that I am a woman it's has been nearly impossible to get listened to in many jobs. And the jobs where I have really and truly kicked it are the jobs where the senior men have taken me seriously and not shut me out. It's that simple. And Sandberg herself admits that much of her success is attributable to luck and the fact that she had powerful mentors. Well, those mentors gave her credibility with the other boys, which is not something all of us are lucky enough to have at every job and no amount of leaning is going to change that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

At 25-40 hours a week you can do both career and family. But, anything more the kids will truly suffer.

I am working up a theory!

The optimal TOTAL working hours of BOTH PARENTS is around 80 hours a week.

So it's do-able if both partners work 40 hours or so.

But if one partner has a regular 40+ job, the other will need to work less to compensate at home.

I think this is the point where you see women leaving the paid workforce - their partners are working too many 40+ hour weeks, and their own job isn't flexible to go enough below 40 to get their combined family working hours below 80.

80 is the magic number!

What do you all think?

on a week-to-week basis, this rings true for my family. some weeks i work more, some my partner does. but when combined we go over 80 hours, it's really tough at home.