There is a new book on the Harvard Business School that skillfully rips it apart for what you are stating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She basically said yeah, I didn't really think about the fact that so many women don't have partners, and how hard that is for them. She is out of touch but that is typical for rich Silicon Valley leaders.

She never built any of the software.

Her boss Zuckerberg famously claimed in 2007 that he never hires middle age developers. “I want to stress the importance of being young and technical,” Zuck added back then, reiterating the point that people over 30 do not make good employees. https://www.cnet.com/news/say-what-young-people-are-just-smarter/

She is COO of Facebook that is classified as H1B Dependent employer by US gov - http://www.fairus.org/issue/for-mark-zuckerberg-br-discriminating-against-american-workers-is-good-for-business

She is on board of directors of Disney that fired hundreds of US workers and replaced with foreign guest workers. - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html?_r=0

Her company finances their own political action entity, fwd.us, to push for cheaper and replaceable workers. When we have an abundance of high skilled labor and graduate more STEM workers than can find jobs.

what am I missing about her?

+1. Disney sucks and should be boycotted. How much money does Bob Iger need? It is never enough and neither for Sandberg. They are disgusting examples of the .001 ruling elite.

And these are the type of people held up as models by liberals. People that screw the low skilled workers. People that do it and don't even apologize, they think they have done NOTHING wrong.

Elite Liberals have abandoned their base. Harvard and the like produce soulless graduates with no conscience. Everything is focused on self-interest. and as even greenspan now knows, that does not benefit the larger society.

We need a new party focusing on the working middle class. We are the majority in numbers. These damn .001 ruling elite have left us to rot while they consume more and more of the pie.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow OP. I feel the same way about her. She acts like she's had it hard. Well, her father was a doctor and they grew up very well off. She has no idea what most of us go through trying to pay for college when we're middle class (parents make "too much" for aid but can't pay a dime to help) and we all don't have fancy jobs.

Her telling women to "lean in" is so full of doo doo. I feel bad her DH died, but she acts like she's the only one in the world who has experienced loss.

All I can saw is "EWW: and I thought I was the only one. You made my day OP.

Didn't she have an amazing mentor who basically gave her the golden kiss and then everything was handed to her? Of course she had to work hard, but some of us never even get that "in" and are stuck with never getting a chance or battling for every position, promotion, etc.

Yes. His name is Larry Summers, perhaps you've heard of him.

Summers, one of the people responsible for deregulating Wall Street along with Rubin. With people like this coming out of Harvard along with Sandberg, who needs foreign enemies? They're destroying America well enough on their own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. Notice how no men ever start a thread to bash Jeff Immelt when he releases a book. Women shouldn't be so defensive and insecure that they feel the need to take down a successful woman.

This misses the point. Meg Whitman wrote a book, and no one is complaining about her. It's because she wrote a book about what she thinks is the secret to her success without professing to be starting a "movement" and admonishing women for not have made the same decisions she made. If you're going to proactively tell people you know what they need to be doing and profess to be their champion, then you're going to open yourself up to criticism.

If she just wrote a book about her career and included some reflections on which choices she made were helpful to it, no one would be upset.

This. I'm not bashing her as a person, I just fundementally disagree with her opinions on every level.

Anonymous wrote:She is much more interesed in furthering her own political aspirations than Zuckerberg's. That's why she has been building her brand.

I thought her initial TED talk on being a workimg women quite good. Turning it into a book didn't work as well, but it did get her name out.

Brand, brand, brand. So tired of people and their stupid brands.

Anonymous wrote:She basically said yeah, I didn't really think about the fact that so many women don't have partners, and how hard that is for them. She is out of touch but that is typical for rich Silicon Valley leaders.

She never built any of the software.

Her boss Zuckerberg famously claimed in 2007 that he never hires middle age developers. “I want to stress the importance of being young and technical,” Zuck added back then, reiterating the point that people over 30 do not make good employees. https://www.cnet.com/news/say-what-young-people-are-just-smarter/

She is COO of Facebook that is classified as H1B Dependent employer by US gov - http://www.fairus.org/issue/for-mark-zuckerberg-br-discriminating-against-american-workers-is-good-for-business

She is on board of directors of Disney that fired hundreds of US workers and replaced with foreign guest workers. - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html?_r=0

Her company finances their own political action entity, fwd.us, to push for cheaper and replaceable workers. When we have an abundance of high skilled labor and graduate more STEM workers than can find jobs.

what am I missing about her?

+1. Disney sucks and should be boycotted. How much money does Bob Iger need? It is never enough and neither for Sandberg. They are disgusting examples of the .001 ruling elite.

Anonymous wrote:The title of her next book is "Let them eat cake."

The title of her next book is "Let them eat cake."

She basically said yeah, I didn't really think about the fact that so many women don't have partners, and how hard that is for them. She is out of touch but that is typical for rich Silicon Valley leaders.

She never built any of the software.

Her boss Zuckerberg famously claimed in 2007 that he never hires middle age developers. “I want to stress the importance of being young and technical,” Zuck added back then, reiterating the point that people over 30 do not make good employees. https://www.cnet.com/news/say-what-young-people-are-just-smarter/

She is COO of Facebook that is classified as H1B Dependent employer by US gov - http://www.fairus.org/issue/for-mark-zuckerberg-br-discriminating-against-american-workers-is-good-for-business

She is on board of directors of Disney that fired hundreds of US workers and replaced with foreign guest workers. - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html?_r=0

Her company finances their own political action entity, fwd.us, to push for cheaper and replaceable workers. When we have an abundance of high skilled labor and graduate more STEM workers than can find jobs.

what am I missing about her?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is a lovely person. This thread is hateful for no reason.

she has put 10s of thousands of americans out of work by importing guest workers rather than hiring US graduates.

she is a rich privileged person trying to talk about how others can be rich and privileged but missing the forest for the trees.

Reference?

I'm sorry the book went over your head. I'm not rich or privileged, but I did get a lot out of her book.

+1 I haven't read the full book, but have liked the excerpts I read. Maybe you should try to read it as well instead of spewing anti-immigrant ignorance all over this site.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is a lovely person. This thread is hateful for no reason.

she has put 10s of thousands of americans out of work by importing guest workers rather than hiring US graduates.

she is a rich privileged person trying to talk about how others can be rich and privileged but missing the forest for the trees.

Reference?

I'm sorry the book went over your head. I'm not rich or privileged, but I did get a lot out of her book.

Anonymous wrote:She is a lovely person. This thread is hateful for no reason.

she has put 10s of thousands of americans out of work by importing guest workers rather than hiring US graduates.

she is a rich privileged person trying to talk about how others can be rich and privileged but missing the forest for the trees.

Anonymous wrote:
please. she does not need to acknowledge all of those who have come before her. no one criticized Donald Trump for not acknowledging all the hard work that others have done to make his career possible (namely his rich dad) in Art of the Deal. yet that was huge bestseller...

What rock do you live under that you are unaware of all the criticism Trump has received for not acknowledging the leg up his rich father gave him to his success? A similar thing was a major factor during Romney's campaign...and it probably would have been more of an issue for Trump if there weren't so many egregious things that no one knew which to concentrate on.

And yes, if you are trying to start a movement to empower women, acknowledging the contributions of other women is sort of a requirement. If you want to write a book selling platitudes about the secret to your success (a la Meg Whitman), no one cares. That's the point.

But continue to hang accolades on a self-professed leader of women who has done little to improve the status of women at the company she works for while throwing rocks at the people who have risked their careers to help other women. FYI, on Facebook's diversity:
http://fortune.com/2015/06/25/facebook-diversity-numbers/

I would think much more highly of her if she spent some time improving the stats and conditions for women at FB and then wrote a book about how other companies could do the same or how women could successfully advocate for their employers to do the same. Instead she wrote a book about how to succeed in the current system (which is a fine autobiographical/self-helpy thing to do) and decided to call it a movement.

I feel like the argument for women having a family balance and successful career is ignited enough without a woman throwing gas on the fire, returning to work a few weeks in. That is fine if it is her choice, but don't force the standard for the rest of us. That is against the girl code. We're still trying to get equal pay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. Notice how no men ever start a thread to bash Jeff Immelt when he releases a book. Women shouldn't be so defensive and insecure that they feel the need to take down a successful woman.

This misses the point. Meg Whitman wrote a book, and no one is complaining about her. It's because she wrote a book about what she thinks is the secret to her success without professing to be starting a "movement" and admonishing women for not have made the same decisions she made. If you're going to proactively tell people you know what they need to be doing and profess to be their champion, then you're going to open yourself up to criticism.

If she just wrote a book about her career and included some reflections on which choices she made were helpful to it, no one would be upset.

Exactly right. Sheryl offers her recipe for female success for $14.99 per book and the recipe is - be born wealthy, be born white, be born pretty, go to Harvard, attract a powerful older male mentor, lean in when doors get opened for you, etc. It's such bullshit.

Plenty of pretty white rich girls who don't go to Harvard and have the career success Sheryl Sandberg has. This thread makes me sad-a bunch of jealous women attacking one of their own for having the temerity to talk about their secret of her success (while a born rich, multiple bankruptcy claiming Donald Trump whose greatest strength is his ego can brag all day long and no one attacks him for it.)

If you read the comments, most of the criticism is pretty clearly targeted to her effectively taking credit for the work so many other women have done to advance women in the workplace. It's not about her having the temerity to talk about the secret of her success (which Meg Whitman has done without nearly the same criticism), it's about acting like she has the answer to everyone's problems and also not acknowledging the hard work others have done to make her career possible.

please. she does not need to acknowledge all of those who have come before her. no one criticized Donald Trump for not acknowledging all the hard work that others have done to make his career possible (namely his rich dad) in Art of the Deal. yet that was huge bestseller...

ahaha. there is like a billion articles on the topic of how trump would be richer if he just kept money in the bank, how he merely borrowed hundreds of millions from his dad etc.

i am actually curious, if no one talks about his rich dad and how he helped his career, i am wondering how do you know about it? you must have dug out some microfiche at your library...