Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, it is totally relevant because most women who make it to the top had a mentor relationship, where sex is the currency . Women don't like to acknowledge this fact, but even in 2017, it's not who you know, it's who you blow - (latest example Fox News). I wonder who Sheryl blew to get her career breaks.

This is such utter bullshit it is almost not worth responding to. In fact, yeah. Never mind.

Women don't like to acknowledge it, but that the way things work very often. It's illegal in many/most cases so it's like the elephant in the board room that no one likes to talk about.

Oh yes, any women who make it to the top slept with a dude to get there and don't forget any minority who has a senior level job just got the job because he or she is a minority. Right?? The only people who really got their jobs based on merit are white guys.

Excellent contribution to the discussion PP. Solid points.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, it is totally relevant because most women who make it to the top had a mentor relationship, where sex is the currency . Women don't like to acknowledge this fact, but even in 2017, it's not who you know, it's who you blow - (latest example Fox News). I wonder who Sheryl blew to get her career breaks.

This is such utter bullshit it is almost not worth responding to. In fact, yeah. Never mind.

Women don't like to acknowledge it, but that the way things work very often. It's illegal in many/most cases so it's like the elephant in the board room that no one likes to talk about.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought lean in was completely out of touch. I'm sorry she lost her husband but I'm not reading another one of her books.

I hate that term 'lean in'. Like most women are not working hard enough! Gimma a break.

Exactly! Like working, taking care of aging parents, small kids, my own health issues etc isn't enough.

“I don’t want to lean in: I want to lie down.” -- Ali Wong

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, it is totally relevant because most women who make it to the top had a mentor relationship, where sex is the currency . Women don't like to acknowledge this fact, but even in 2017, it's not who you know, it's who you blow - (latest example Fox News). I wonder who Sheryl blew to get her career breaks.

This is such utter bullshit it is almost not worth responding to. In fact, yeah. Never mind.

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).

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, it is totally relevant because most women who make it to the top had a mentor relationship, where sex is the currency . Women don't like to acknowledge this fact, but even in 2017, it's not who you know, it's who you blow - (latest example Fox News). I wonder who Sheryl blew to get her career breaks.

Anonymous wrote:

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 don
't think she is necessarily oblivious to it, but what are you going to do? I am not going to play coy because people don't think it is my place. If more women felt comfortable stepping up, the notion that it isn't our place would quickly disappear.

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: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.

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.

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.