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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.