I'd like to tell Sheryl Sandberg to STFU.

[Anonymous]

^ "should" = "sound"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:sandberg's advice is not very applicable to non elite school women. especially non elite school non-jewish women.

without H - > HBS -> McKinsey -> Larry Summer's protege she doesn't get on the right path to give her the opportunities she needs for the flexibility/lifestyle she has.

Sandberg's book has value for young women in HS or in college who are on those types of traintracks.

It is wholly inappropriate for your typical state school grad to read.

What is with the references to her religion? This is the second post. Thankfully the first was deleted.

jewish people have a very strong network through their ethnicity/religion that others might not be able to tap. you are very naive if you don't know about this.

note, this isn't just about jewish people. it would be about any ethnicity that has a tight knit networking relationship.

amy chua talks about how this is one aspect of successful minorities.

go ahead and roll your eyes at me. this board is about unvarnished truths so that we can all help each other out. but if you want to day dream about being able to follow sandberg's path, more power to you.

I'll keep day dreaming before becoming a racist like you.

NP. It really was not racist. Jewish religious and cultural institutions invest a ton in networking. I'm not saying it's some Elders of Zion cabal, but there is a middle way between conspiracy theories and your feigned obliviousness.

When the statement is Jewish people have paths to success other people don't, it's pretty ignorant and close to Elders of Zion.

The fact is Jews are not some tight knit, recent, immigrant group-- in fact the differences among Jews are often bigger than the differences between Jews and non-Jews (did you hear the one about Trump's ambassador to Israel saying liberal Jews are worse than Nazi collaborators?)

It may be that there is some networking among a particular Jewish cohort or congregation, but the idea that being Jewish gives you a leg up over other people in corporate America seems a little strange, if not racist.


Back on topic, I really dislike how Sheryl Sandberg refused to engage at all with the hotel workers at Harvard.

[Anonymous]

PP, you are seriously delusional. Of course there are some divides and acrimony between different strands of Judaism. There are also a lot of groups focused on unity and pluralistic association among Jews. Yes, Jewish people have opportunities for network-building to which others do not have easy access. Does that mean it's the only path? No. But we're talking about a specific person here and what's relevant to her.

[Anonymous]

Her entitlement is too much for me to handle. One instance in which i think the annoying phrase "check your privilege" applies!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:sandberg's advice is not very applicable to non elite school women. especially non elite school non-jewish women.

without H - > HBS -> McKinsey -> Larry Summer's protege she doesn't get on the right path to give her the opportunities she needs for the flexibility/lifestyle she has.

Sandberg's book has value for young women in HS or in college who are on those types of traintracks.

It is wholly inappropriate for your typical state school grad to read.

What is with the references to her religion? This is the second post. Thankfully the first was deleted.

jewish people have a very strong network through their ethnicity/religion that others might not be able to tap. you are very naive if you don't know about this.

note, this isn't just about jewish people. it would be about any ethnicity that has a tight knit networking relationship.

amy chua talks about how this is one aspect of successful minorities.

go ahead and roll your eyes at me. this board is about unvarnished truths so that we can all help each other out. but if you want to day dream about being able to follow sandberg's path, more power to you.

I'll keep day dreaming before becoming a racist like you.

NP. It really was not racist. Jewish religious and cultural institutions invest a ton in networking. I'm not saying it's some Elders of Zion cabal, but there is a middle way between conspiracy theories and your feigned obliviousness.

When the statement is Jewish people have paths to success other people don't, it's pretty ignorant and close to Elders of Zion.

The fact is Jews are not some tight knit, recent, immigrant group-- in fact the differences among Jews are often bigger than the differences between Jews and non-Jews (did you hear the one about Trump's ambassador to Israel saying liberal Jews are worse than Nazi collaborators?)

It may be that there is some networking among a particular Jewish cohort or congregation, but the idea that being Jewish gives you a leg up over other people in corporate America seems a little strange, if not racist.


Back on topic, I really dislike how Sheryl Sandberg refused to engage at all with the hotel workers at Harvard.

oh look, today's front page on Bloomberg.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-26/kushners-are-partners-with-one-of-israel-s-wealthiest-families

yeah i'm sure that the Kushners being jewish had NOTHING to do with their access to theses capital and partnerships.

nothing to see here. move along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love her.

I didn't agree with every word of Lean In, but I think the book did a lot to open up the public dialogue about the challenges women face in the workplace. I'm grateful for the conversations it started around me with both male colleagues and female friends.

The organization related to the book does a lot of good educational material like the McKinsey study that shine a spotlight on these issues.

I think the loss of her husband is devastatingly terrible and, regardless of her privilege, I found it admirable that she spoke so publicly about it throughout the grieving process - and now in a book just 2 years later. I've learned a lot from the book and her posts that has helped me better support grieving friends.

So yeah, she's not perfect and sometimes out-of-touch, but I think she's a pretty impressive person that's done some good in the world.

FWIW, it's not like she started these conversations or was the first to give voice to them. But her position probably did give broader voice to these conversations. At the same time, whatever her personal relationship with him, Larry Summers is not a woman's advocate and it's inexcusable for her not to discuss it. The comments he made about women in science were made in a room where the MIT professor who was the first person to study workplace inequality by doing things like measuring the size of offices. She has benefited tremendously from the work that her "mentor" denigrated publicly.

But my bigger beef with her, and I think it's what bothers many, is that her entire brand of feminism is a form of corporate apology. She tells people to pushback against workplace culture, but she doesn't really suggest ways to truly change it. I think Anne Marie Slaughter's book (which also reflects a certain privilege) provides a valuable counterbalance to Sandberg's perspective.

FWIW, I'm a woman who works in tech. I've seen Sandberg speak at the biggest annual conference for women in tech, Grace Hopper Conference, and she comes across as a fool sitting on the stage with women who have fought extreme bias and also worked to transform culture the hard way. This was before her DH died, and I do understand she's changed her thinking a bit. But it felt at the time like she was happy to be given credit for others' hard work in the trenches.

Well-said. As for the new book on grief, look, nobody could not be moved by her story of loss. Beyond that, however, it basically seems like a repackaging of fairly superficial concepts about grief and resilience -- see this WaPo interview with her co-author: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2017/04/25/the-leadership-lessons-in-sheryl-sandbergs-and-adam-grants-new-book-about-resiliency-and-grief/?utm_term=.49a9c6a2beda.

I have a close friend who's a grief counselor, working primarily with kids. Her take on the book is that Sandberg is bringing some attention and financial support to these issues, but, as with Lean In, she's a bit tone-deaf. While she now says that she understands why many women felt that Lean In was unrealistic about what life is like for workers who aren't super-wealthy CEOs, she still doesn't seem to understand how much her wealth and status have shaped how she and her family have fared during these first two years since her husband's death. And, on that note, my friend has also said that writing a book about grief after two years doesn't allow for the longer perspective that's really necessary to understand how grief plays out, particularly in the lives of children.

[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.

She's an uppity bitch

[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.

Thank you for voicing what I have always felt. She is so self serving and I got to the point if I heard the coin phrase "Lean in" one more time I would scream and now its "just show up". Her annoying kitschy antics dont' fly with me and apparently many other women. She. needs to go away.

[Anonymous]

I was at soccer practice this spring for U9 girls, and this one dad who worked in the previous administration, literally kept yelling "LEAN IN!" as his words of encouragement.

It was so distracting b/c he just kept saying it over and over, during practice! To be fair, she wasn't that athletic, so she should probably take her dad's advice and lean in against her fellow 8 yr old girls.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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 am the poster that was 50/50 on liking her book. Yes, she has some good points. But the other 50 is a real turn off, imagine to us her comments sound like this... when you have parent die and you are crying and grieving and Sheryl says "oh I know how you feel my cat died" .... CAT ... she is trying to be empathetic and helpful but it's like UM WHAT.

[Anonymous]

I also wanted to tell her to STFU, then her DH died, and now I just pity her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She's an uppity bitch

And pushy too. No, wait a minute, She ordered that word struck off the dictionary, so can use it in an English language forum.

[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 am the poster that was 50/50 on liking her book. Yes, she has some good points. But the other 50 is a real turn off, imagine to us her comments sound like this... when you have parent die and you are crying and grieving and Sheryl says "oh I know how you feel my cat died" .... CAT ... she is trying to be empathetic and helpful but it's like UM WHAT.

Can you direct me to something that she said that is analogous to the your parent dying = my cat dying type of comment? That's just totally inconsistent with what I remember her book to be about, that I don't even understand how to respond. I think that's a real distortion of what she wrote and what her message is.