I'd like to tell Sheryl Sandberg to STFU.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

I think it's tacky that she gave her husband's eulogy. She talks so fucking much she can't even shut up for a minute to be a grieving widow.

[Anonymous]

I gotta say, I'm surprised/disappointed by the anger/vitriol here. It seems that women just automatically "hate" a woman who has privilege and did well. There is pure jealousy coming out here, masked as middle class anger - "she just doesn't understand how expensive daycare is, blah blah blah". It's like people think they can have no connection or understanding with someone in a certain income tax bracket, like she is incapable of understanding your basic human experience and vice versa. So many of you clearly just want to see her suffer for no good reason. This is especially sad because she should be a role model for women. There is nothing inherently annoying about her - she's not Gwyneth Paltrow talking down to people. She worked incredibly hard to get to the top of a business, in a male-dominated world, and she wrote a book trying to help other women up and give advice, and she's known as being a mentor and a kind person. Yet, everyone on here "hates" her because she's so annoying and so out-of-touch. Who should we be listening to for advice then, Kim Kardashian? Or just losers? Poor people only?

[Anonymous]

Wow, can't believe the hate here... from women.

I read Lean In, cover to cover, and loved it! I kinda adopted her as my mentor. She is so inspiring to me.
As a working mom of 4 kids who really likes my career and wants to achieve and feel it makes me a better mom, I felt like she was speaking directly to me. I've seen and managed many women who make the mistakes she talks about in her book. I try to help them, but despite saying they care about their career, they subvert their potential.

I encourage any motivated working woman to read it again without your defenses up, and really listen to what she says. and read it thinking that she is trying to help you...because she is.

[Anonymous]

I just posted.
So I challenge the women on this board, if Sheryl Sandberg isn't a role model and inspiration to business women then who is?
and don't mention any women in government, because although there are some great women in government, it is a totally different world than the business/law/finance/industry world- which is dominated by men.

Who should be our role models?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel both ways about her. On the one hand, I admire her because she's obviously a strong woman and has accomplished a lot in her lifetime. On the other hand, it is annoying that she seems to be pushing HER way of doing things as the right way, and also for making it seem as if ANYONE can do what she did, if they follow her lead. Whether she means to or not, she puts down women who choose to stay at home with their children, and women who are not able to balance it all.

+1

It's awful that her husband died. He sounded like a wonderful husband and father. Sad.

I also admire her but what I don't agree with her is that she takes the all or none approach. In her mind, you are either in the work full and lean in or push forward or you are not. There's lots of women who work part time or have put their next steps on hold while their care for young children or elderly parents, and that's ok. I work full time and wish I could afford to cut my hours and/or take a less demanding job for better work life balance. Also, a lot of women do not earn large salaries to be able to outsource all their household responsibilities. She does not address that issue at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I gotta say, I'm surprised/disappointed by the anger/vitriol here. It seems that women just automatically "hate" a woman who has privilege and did well. There is pure jealousy coming out here, masked as middle class anger - "she just doesn't understand how expensive daycare is, blah blah blah". It's like people think they can have no connection or understanding with someone in a certain income tax bracket, like she is incapable of understanding your basic human experience and vice versa. So many of you clearly just want to see her suffer for no good reason. This is especially sad because she should be a role model for women. There is nothing inherently annoying about her - she's not Gwyneth Paltrow talking down to people. She worked incredibly hard to get to the top of a business, in a male-dominated world, and she wrote a book trying to help other women up and give advice, and she's known as being a mentor and a kind person. Yet, everyone on here "hates" her because she's so annoying and so out-of-touch. Who should we be listening to for advice then, Kim Kardashian? Or just losers? Poor people only?

Not according to prior posters. Sheryl MUST have gotten to her level by sleeping her way to the top. Don't you know ALL women in top roles do this?!

[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).

Exactly. She could have set up a mentoring system and make sure women got some spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was skeptical of "Lean In" but nonetheless read it.

Some of the points in it were valid, like making yourself take a seat at the main table during meetings and asking for big assignments. But I also had some major issues with it -- most notably the underlying premise that work is the be-all, end-all source of a person's fulfillment, and that if you choose other sources of fulfillment (family, a balanced life, interests outside of work) you are somehow not doing "enough." Also, as another poster pointed out, she assumed that her choices were viable for most women, rather than only for the most highly qualified, economically advantaged, sough- after women who begin with bargaining power. She admits now that she did not adequately consider the realities of women with lower economic status, women who do the majority of caregiving, single mothers, etc.

I too am very sorry she lost her husband, and her piece about having to tell her kids that their dad had died was devastating. But, eh, I'm not sure I will read her book.

These are valid and to be encouraged, but studies have shown that when women do stuff like this, they are given the side-eye, seen as ambitious, bitchy, versus guys who are just go-getters. And also treated this way BY other women who feel like they don't know their place. She is oblivious that this is all at play in some workplaces. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

I experienced this myself. Male coworkers say: who do you think you are?

[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 think most of the people want that kind of life but can't afford it.

[Anonymous]

Do the proceeds from the book go to a charity or something? I know she is a widow and all, but profiting from your husbands death when you are already obscenely wealth feels.. off. I don't know, if she was some soldiers widow I knownearning the profit would feel justifiable but in this case it doesn't so perhaps I am being unfair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has been on every TV news magazine and morning show this week. I hated her lean in stuff, although she admits she didn't really get how impractical and insulting that was for many women and especially single mothers (like me) until now that she is widowed. Still, there is something shrill and annoying about her. Not a fan.

That touches on what annoys me about her. She writes about where she is in life as if either she is the first person to do this and/or there is no other way. Now that she is experiencing something new and very different for the first time, she gets how off she was before, and gosh! life can be different for different people depending on so many factors. She really came across as obtuse in her first book (kind of like an overexcited first time mom comes across to a grandmother of 12).

This.

While I do appreciate what she's doing to stimulate more consciousness about issues related to women in the workplace and loss (issues close to my heart), and I think she's fairly criticized for being tone-deaf about women who aren't like her, it's the way she presents herself - as if she, personally, has discovered something that no one else knows - that really rubs me the wrong way. It takes a special kind of bold to explain grief about spousal loss to the world merely two years on, especially when there are books like The Year of Magical Thinking out there.

Thanks to OP for starting this thread because I thought I was alone. Both of you PPs hit the nail on the head--it's like she's the first person to experience certain things and write about them! There are so many wpyoung widows out there that are working two jobs and do not have the luxury of time to also write a book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She probably means well when she gives advice to women, but I find her out of touch with the reality of women who are "where the rubber meet the road". Every time she spews advice to women, I feel like she is helping no one except herself.

Yes, she is bossy. She should at the very least own up to that and not try to flipping ban the word from the world (a very bossy endeavor as well).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was skeptical of "Lean In" but nonetheless read it.

Some of the points in it were valid, like making yourself take a seat at the main table during meetings and asking for big assignments. But I also had some major issues with it -- most notably the underlying premise that work is the be-all, end-all source of a person's fulfillment, and that if you choose other sources of fulfillment (family, a balanced life, interests outside of work) you are somehow not doing "enough." Also, as another poster pointed out, she assumed that her choices were viable for most women, rather than only for the most highly qualified, economically advantaged, sough- after women who begin with bargaining power. She admits now that she did not adequately consider the realities of women with lower economic status, women who do the majority of caregiving, single mothers, etc.

I too am very sorry she lost her husband, and her piece about having to tell her kids that their dad had died was devastating. But, eh, I'm not sure I will read her book.

This. Some of her points about personal ways women can get more credit were good and one of my friends benefitted from the advice. But I disliked how she focused so much on the individual and completely left out the systemic problems women face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just posted.
So I challenge the women on this board, if Sheryl Sandberg isn't a role model and inspiration to business women then who is?
and don't mention any women in government, because although there are some great women in government, it is a totally different world than the business/law/finance/industry world- which is dominated by men.

Who should be our role models?

the us senate as a percentage has less women than goldman has MD's.

25% of managing directors at goldman sachs are women.

21% of us senate is female.