Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here...this is what she says about my criticism: "I know some believe that by focusing on what women can change themselves-pressing them to lean in-it seems like I am letting our institutions off the hook. Or even worse, they accuse me of blaming the victim. Far from blaming the victim, I believe that female leaders are the key to the solution."

Why not our male leaders? Why not the female rank and file? It's like she thinks only people like her are the solution.

I've posted this before, but it bears repeating. Statements like these would hold a lot more water if she were able to demonstrate that Facebook is some kind of leader in creating a positive workplace for women. As it stands, it seems at least just as unwelcoming to women as all the other SV giants.

Thanks for this and the previous post. Never saw that STEM campaign, but wow that's awful. Maybe a way to get more women to stay in STEM is to ensure stuff like this never, ever happens again:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/azeenghorayshi/how-harassment-stays-secret?utm_term=.qyONboZ6rR#.wh6lNGkKVp

Its worse.

Facebook is a leader in replacing US workers with foreign guest workers and with institutionalized age bias.

As COO she has primary responsibility on the culture and practice of Facebook in hiring. She is focusing on her own profit over helping others. Not a role model for my daughter, an example of someone motivated solely by self interest.

Facebook average age is 29 - https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2016/09/15/silicon-valleys-not-so-secret-bias-ageism/90120616/
H1B Dependent Employer (abuses H1B) - http://cis.org/Immigration-Maps/H1B-Dependent-Willful-Violator-Debarred

Anonymous wrote:PP here...this is what she says about my criticism: "I know some believe that by focusing on what women can change themselves-pressing them to lean in-it seems like I am letting our institutions off the hook. Or even worse, they accuse me of blaming the victim. Far from blaming the victim, I believe that female leaders are the key to the solution."

Why not our male leaders? Why not the female rank and file? It's like she thinks only people like her are the solution.

I've posted this before, but it bears repeating. Statements like these would hold a lot more water if she were able to demonstrate that Facebook is some kind of leader in creating a positive workplace for women. As it stands, it seems at least just as unwelcoming to women as all the other SV giants.

Thanks for this and the previous post. Never saw that STEM campaign, but wow that's awful. Maybe a way to get more women to stay in STEM is to ensure stuff like this never, ever happens again:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/azeenghorayshi/how-harassment-stays-secret?utm_term=.qyONboZ6rR#.wh6lNGkKVp

PP here...this is what she says about my criticism: "I know some believe that by focusing on what women can change themselves-pressing them to lean in-it seems like I am letting our institutions off the hook. Or even worse, they accuse me of blaming the victim. Far from blaming the victim, I believe that female leaders are the key to the solution."

Why not our male leaders? Why not the female rank and file? It's like she thinks only people like her are the solution.

I guess that's why she turns me off. I *don't* think that women are are own worst enemies. I don't think women are under represented at the top levels of government and business because we fail to sit at the table, or doubt our own abilities, or are "leaving before we leave."

I think the problem is systemic, entrenched sexism. Making it an issue about what individual women do, and holding herself up as the kind of solution to the problem, just doesn't fly.

I get she wants to write a self-help kind of thing for women. But it comes across like that advertisement that featured young girls talking about how they wanted to be scientists, then noted that a small percentage make it. The ad said something like, "Change the World. Stay in STEM." Like putting it all on these girls--that they needed to stay in STEM and change the world. Why not a message more like, "Hey, older people in power and especially men, change the world so that these girls are ABLE to stay in STEM."

Compare Sheryl Stanberg's books to, say, Barbara Ehrenrich's Nickel and Dimed: On Not Getting by in America, that showed how hard working, well-meaning people (and lots of women) were being systematically screwed.

If your message is that women need to "lean in" or that women are failing to make their partners partners, you are suggesting the problem is not, for example, the total lack of mandated maternity leave and time off to care for a young child.

She is not suggesting that women march in the streets and demand these things, is she? Instead she is talking about how, oh, women start pulling away from work when they merely think of having a child. And how oh so wrong that is.

I feel bad about her husband. But she just seems so tone-deaf to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You clearly didn't read "Lean In." And if you did and this is what you got out of it, you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.

+1. The fact that some women need to respond to a highly intelligent, articulate woman talking about gender issues with 'STFU' indicates the magnitude of our gender gap.

+2. often I feel like women are our own worst enemies, and are constantly looking for excuses to not live up to our full potential.
Newsflash- our kids don't need or want us to be around them 24/7. It's not good for their long-term development and success, nor ours.
I LOVED her book.

+3 Her book is thoughtful and interesting. Most the people bashing her on this thread don't appear to have read it. The STFU poster seems not to have ever read any book ever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You clearly didn't read "Lean In." And if you did and this is what you got out of it, you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.

+1. The fact that some women need to respond to a highly intelligent, articulate woman talking about gender issues with 'STFU' indicates the magnitude of our gender gap.

+2. often I feel like women are our own worst enemies, and are constantly looking for excuses to not live up to our full potential.
Newsflash- our kids don't need or want us to be around them 24/7. It's not good for their long-term development and success, nor ours.
I LOVED her book.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You clearly didn't read "Lean In." And if you did and this is what you got out of it, you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.

+1. The fact that some women need to respond to a highly intelligent, articulate woman talking about gender issues with 'STFU' indicates the magnitude of our gender gap.

The fact that a woman worth millions who has help from day to night and has the nerve to give advice to the mother commuting 2 hours a day to make a salary that's probably equal to that of Sheryl's nanny indicates how out of touch many of you are.

Thanks for proving my point, +1 PP!

Anonymous wrote:I saw her on TV recently explaining 'what happiness is' to women. 'It's the small things that you notice'. No Sheryl that is not what happiness is to most of us.

It's the paycheck that allows me to keep a roof over our heads.

How about that, Sher?

Me too. My sister lives by that lean in BS and I have to keep quiet all the time!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You clearly didn't read "Lean In." And if you did and this is what you got out of it, you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.

+1. The fact that some women need to respond to a highly intelligent, articulate woman talking about gender issues with 'STFU' indicates the magnitude of our gender gap.

What does that even mean? Be coherent or STFU.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You clearly didn't read "Lean In." And if you did and this is what you got out of it, you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.

+1. The fact that some women need to respond to a highly intelligent, articulate woman talking about gender issues with 'STFU' indicates the magnitude of our gender gap.

Anonymous wrote: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.

You clearly didn't read "Lean In." And if you did and this is what you got out of it, you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.

Anonymous wrote:Anybody went to hear her speak last week at Sixth & I?

(I was actually quite amazed that her book tour was not a series of B&N free talks plus book signing but PAID tickets to the "theater" venues with presigned books. Obviously there is a sucker born every minute... )

She's getting exactly what she wants by having people complain about her - attention. Sandberg is like the Clintons. She will not go away and leave us alone.

Anybody went to hear her speak last week at Sixth & I?

(I was actually quite amazed that her book tour was not a series of B&N free talks plus book signing but PAID tickets to the "theater" venues with presigned books. Obviously there is a sucker born every minute... )

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.

+1.

I can appreciate the lesson of making the right choices, but what's turned me off is the assumption that everyone has the same options. Worse, that we all want the same things - or should want those things if we want to ensure that some women can have those things.

The other thing that bugs me is that it feels counterproductive to argue that "successful" work-life balance is a woman's challenge. My husband prioritizes his family and strives for it; I expect my son to strive for it. Wouldn't the movement be that much stronger if they could join it? I don't see women gaining much by making the issues gender-specific.