Sheryl Sandberg & Male-Dominated Silicon Valley
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
This is actually very common among successful people. It's called "Impostor Syndrome" and I don't think it affects women more than men. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Impostor_Synd... (The opposite is the Dunning-Kruger effect, https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dunning%E2%80... )
Sandberg says she eventually realized that women, unlike men, encountered tradeoffs between success and likability.
I'm not sure if it's exactly the same, but a study posted to HN just yesterday proves that this affects men as well. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2724212
Also, I don't understand this part: Sandberg asked Goler to oversee human resources at Facebook. Goler wavered, saying that she didn’t think she was qualified. “No man would ever turn down more responsibility,” Sandberg admonished her. Goler then said yes.
There are a ton of engineers who don't want to be in management, and have turned down offers of "more responsibility". How could Sandberg not know that, having worked at Google and Facebook?
I see a similar feeling in how most people here view their competitors.
Since Goler apparently was concerned more about qualification than about "being in management", it makes sense in the context of reports that women underrate themselves to suggest being more assertive.
Also, I've rarely found good engineers who would turn down "more responsibility". They just want it in the areas they want it in (say, a particular area of the code base, standards, product direction), not in areas that others want them to ("management").
Women did not (and still mostly do not) want anything to do with computers. Now x years later they want to reap the same benefits as the nerdy dorky white kid who spent all his youth in front of a monitor.
No sympathy here.
And all Hispanics are lazy.
And all Irish people drink.
Etc.
The trouble with generalizations is that they stop being useful when you're dealing with individual human beings. It's your business if you want to say absurdly wrong-headed, misogynist things but at least sign your real name to them, huh?
edit: Ah, the good ol' HN No Girls Allowed Brigade. Good luck, travelers.
If you refuse to use it, I salute you.
Tell me again who has power here: the people writing the headlines for the New Yorker? Or the poor HN engineer being forced yet again to don the sackcloth and ashes for having a Y chromosome?
Women in general are statistically less interested in math, science, or computers. They are also less violent and tragically underrepresented in prisons, low-wage jobs, and the combat arms of the military.
When women agitate to sign up for Selective Service and the great and the good militate to push more women into garbage disposal, gravedigging, and septic tank repair, that's when you'll know they're serious about equality.
It's an observation, not an "absurdly wrong-headed, misogynist thing".
Edit: and Michael Arrington said "Every damn time we have a conference we fret over how we can find women to fill speaking slots. We ask our friends and contacts for suggestions. We beg women to come and speak. . . . And you know what? A lot of the time they say no. Because they are literally hounded to speak at every single tech event in the world because they are all trying so hard to find qualified women to speak at their conference."
I hold an extremely high opinion of most HN readers. I have never before in my life talked with so many people who intimidate me through raw intelligence alone. I find it very hard to believe that there's some secret sexist agenda upon which they've all agreed.
Rather, I think HN has an extremely low tolerance for bullshit, and a hacker's typical hyper-focus on competence.
The hacker ethic is pretty egalitarian; it basically boils down to "If you know your stuff, you can hang with us." Peter Deutsch was 12 when he was messing around in the MIT lab, and no one minded---except the pointy-headed academics, which is typical.
So to say in the midst of a hackers' forum that we ought to judge on something other than technical merit...well, what do you expect? Startups don't need women---women are ditzy, appearance-focused, and scared of risk. Startups don't need men either---men are prone to irrational risky behavior, overconfident, and inconsiderate. Startups need engineers, and they are rare enough in both genders that they'll take them if they're blind, half-man half-woman, triple-lesbian, WHATEVER.
There are social issues (particularly in beginning CS classes, IMO) that can be addressed, but the issue is generally not male discrimination in the Valley, and that's what the article implies. That's what stirs the reaction here.
And stop your straw-man labeling. It brings down the level of discussion.
There is huge demand for people in those positions, more than ever, and programming is starting to become necessary for non-computer-oriented jobs as well.
In some cultures (for example, India) a lot of women are already programmer. It's also starting here, for example my sister recently learnt Python for her research job.
With any luck it will happen soon. I'm starting to grow tired of all the "institutional sexism" articles around here.
It's easy to say there's nothing wrong when you've never encountered the problems that most other women have.
No amount of "sponsorship by men" would ever get me to where she is, because I lack what she has. The qualities that make her worth "sponsoring" in the first place.
Sad to hear you think you lack the qualities that make her worth sponsoring but that isn't really relevant to this discussion.
To be honest, this really seems like a sort of True Scotsman style argument to me. A woman handily succeeds where the "glass ceiling" theory says she shouldn't, but this is explained away as "her example doesn't count".
I'd have to strongly disagree. There are plenty of people in this world (plenty at the top) who were born in to the right position and either worked hard to stay there (+connections/influence) or didn't work hard but still stayed there (connections/influence). Very few people are like Barrack Obama--come from the semi-bottom and are now extremely high up. More common are people like George Bush, Jr. and Al Gore. Both were born in to the right position and stayed there.
Also, it's not that her example doesn't count, she's the exception--not the rule. How do we make her the rule is the question. There are many answers/ideas about that.
As for being born into it, I consider that to be a form of nepotism and address it in my other posting.
The glass ceiling metaphor is too abstract because it makes an underhanded claim to universality. "A glass ceiling for women in tech" is too vague and doesn't advance the discussion.
As for glass ceiling metaphor, why don't you ask Sandberg what she's referring to. I was just referencing what she said "She opposes all forms of affirmative action for women. “If you don’t believe there is a glass ceiling, there is no need,” she told me."
Oh and as for specifics about being propped up and sponsored by men I'd point to things like this "In January of 1991, Summers became the chief economist at the World Bank, and that spring he recruited Sandberg as a research assistant." I don't care how smart or good you are, without certain connections you're not going to get a research associateship at the world bank.
TIL The current FB COO worked as a research assistant at the World Bank.
Sometimes I want to blame my parents for being just a pair of middle-aged farmers in an Eastern-European country, when they could have had guys like Summers as their friend and a mansion in Hamptons if they had worked hard enough.</sarcasm>
If it were some sort of nepotism then you might have a point, but since it's not it really just shows the opposite of what you suggest. It shows that women are able to improve their own station in exactly the same way men do. And had it been nepotism, it would show nothing more than women can do it the other way men do it as well.
Can most women do this to the degree she has? No. Just like most men can't.
Anyway, let me attempt to convey my general point again: The way I see it there are exactly 2 basic ways advancing. Nepotism, and combinations of luck/hardwork/getting noticed.
I don't know anyone who suggests that there is a glass ceiling preventing women from taking advantage of nepotism. Rather, every explanation of the glass ceiling theory that I have had presented to me boils down to in some way: luck/hardwork/getting noticed doesn't work for women.
Sandberg worked hard, got noticed, and arguably got a little lucky. Bypassing the glass ceiling would be to utilize nepotism but she went clear through it.
Perhaps it does exist, but Sandberg shows it's certainly not impermeable.
edit: s/wall/ceiling/
As I think about it a bit more, I disagree. Luck/hard work/getting noticed by definition really isn't about anything other than merit and luck, so if a glass ceiling exists it has to be related to nepotism.
What about family businesses being taken over more often by sons than daughters? Parents using connections to find their son a job, and find their daughter a husband?
How is this a gendered issue at all?
Men are also forced to choose between non-career activities and giving their all to their career. Men who choose non-career activities rarely become COO of a $50B company.
Women who aren't mentored by the best of the best and don't have parents who are PhD (dropouts) and Ophthalmologists.
The number of women who have parents who are PhD (dropouts) and Ophthalmologists is equal (within some statistical margin of error) to the number of men who have similarly situated parents.
If she didn't want to do this, she could have freely chosen to a) not have children or b) have children with an unambitious man willing to become a full time parent.
If you want to argue that women are somehow "defective" because they prefer children to careers, be my guest. But it is dishonest to call it a glass ceiling - that phrase usually implies it's something inflicted on her by other people.
And as far as I can tell, the google guys weren't alpha male types charging forward at every stage of the process - they had a lot of self-doubt as well. I'm sure there were mentors, but Sheryl Sandberg is an economics major who was "mentored" by Larry Summers (an impressive guy, to be sure, but this sounds like the career path of someone who earned n impressive severance package after the financial meltdown, not someone who came out of nowhere in the tech world).
I'm not saying that the career ladder described in this article doesn't exist in silicon valley - clearly it does, but probably to a lesser extent than in other industries. In short, this article probably explains more about other industries than silicon valley itself.
It's simple: The article is promoting a grand disaster. It's still more simple: The article has a huge logical gap.
Sandberg does a lot of 'reaching out' to women; she does so much of this that the article can reasonably pose the question:
"Can Sheryl Sandberg upend Silicon Valley’s male-dominated culture?"
In particular, as in Sandberg's buffet dinners with lots of women, her commencement speech at Barnard College, her TED talk, she's trying to talk to many women or 'most' women about how to 'do better'.
Then, that's the gap, at least in the article, and maybe also in what she is doing: Right away we can see that her example and thinking as in the article (again, I'm talking about the article here and not necessarily her) just cannot even hope to work for more than 1% of women. For the other 99+%, her example and advice, as in the article, is just somewhat dangerous fantasy nonsense.
For an analogy, not perfect but close enough, the claim is, play as well as Dirk Nowitzki and you, too, can win an NBA championship. Nope: No matter how many people play as well as Dirk Nowitzki, in a given year (on separate teams) at most one will win an NBA championship. So, the fantasy of the article is nonsense.
To move this simple analogy closer to the real situation, only a very tiny fraction of people can have careers at or near the top of hot, leading, very valuable businesses.
Or, no matter what the heck the advice, just CANNOT put more than 1% of the people in the top 1% of the positions. EVER. Again, for the logical gap, the article is suggesting, entertaining its readers, with the fantasy that all women who will "Be like Sheryl" can also be in the top 1% of business jobs. Nope. So, the fantasy of the article is nonsense.
Next, there is a striking conflict right at the surface: She has a nanny at home and a staff at work. So, what about THOSE women, that is, the nanny, no doubt a woman, and the staff, likely well over 50% women? That is, what about their 'work-life balance'? For the children of the nanny, does the nanny have a nanny? For the staff, does each staff member have a staff? Since the answers are likely no, the fantasy of the article is nonsense.
So, net, how many women are setting aside their own 'work-life balance' so that Ms. Sandberg can be such a 'successful woman'?
Then at work, when 'crunch time' comes and she needs to be home with her two children, what does she do? Sure: First, she has a staff. Second, she can delegate. Third, she can rush home and spend 'quality time' with her children while the nanny does the washing, cleaning, cooking, etc. Again, the fantasy of the article is nonsense, fundamentally, for all but a tiny fraction of women.
Next, for 'career advice' for women, the article and her example are nonsense. Here is the blunt, bold, bottom line fact of life about careers in the US now and for some decades: Making your career direction trying to be near the top of a large corporation is a fool's errand. First, unless one gets lucky with stock, such as Ms. Sandberg did at Google, there's actually not much money, from just salary, after taxes, after unreimbursed business expenses, e.g., the clothes, car, nanny, house, buffets, in being in such a position. E.g., her car will be expensive because as soon as it needs maintenance she won't sit there for a few hours in a muffler shop, brake shop, tune-up shop, tire shop, oil change place, etc. and, instead, will just trade in the thing for a new one. Second, such jobs tend not to last very long.
In particular, the article is swooning over the situation that Ms. Sandberg can be a CEO: Sure, just start a lemonade stand and be a CEO. But the article means that she can be hired as a CEO in some large corporation. Well, maybe. Then what? She's just a hired CEO, and that's NOT a very good job because (1) have to spend most of the effort trying to be successful while pleasing both the SEC and Wall Street (keeping down class action stockholder suits, etc.) and (2) actually do not have much real control over the future of the business. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs (after his RETURN to Apple which was nearly dead), Larry Ellison, Fred Smith have control; John Akers, Lou Gerstner, Jeffery Immelt, Carly Florina, didn't or don't. Such jobs tend not to last very long.
The article shows another serious problem: Ms. Sandberg flatly doesn't know what the heck she wants. What she's done is to work hard, be great at memorization, dot i's, cross t's, each day have all the items on her to-do list checked off, do well going without sleep, save time on hair, makeup, exercise, and clothes, all for the goal of getting 'security' in some sense from getting praise, acceptance, and approval from a herd of women and the public from being an 'accomplished woman'.
That's her life's goal, her (P. Tillich) 'ultimate concern' -- 'security' in some sense from getting praise, acceptance, and approval from a herd of women and the public from being an 'accomplished woman'.
She's making two huge mistakes: (1) The point of work is to make money, bring the money home, deposit it in the family checkbook, pay the bills, and get some good financial security for the family. Period. That's IT. Asking for more from work is a fool's errand pursued only by fools. (2) The good things in life are what pursue once have done well enough on financial security. Mostly these good things are the home and family and things close to them. These good things are mostly NOT distant things such as praise, acceptance, and approval from a herd of women and the public.
If I were her husband, then I would conclude that she was a disaster as a wife, mother, and person because she is much more interested in praise, acceptance, and approval from New York City, Boston, etc. than from her own husband and children. Bummer. Super bummer. Super confused, lost, brain-dead bummer.
I've seen such things far too often before: Some of these women are totally beyond belief. In their teens and twenties, they can work harder and go with less sleep than any man could ever hope to approach. They have fantastic rote memories. Their abilities at detail work of dotting i's and crossing t's is astounding, bested only by computers. They can zip through humanities subjects, especially novels, with blinding speed and get A+ on a corresponding test with discussion questions. Their social skills can be somewhat mechanical and analytical (not like 'Miss Congeniality') but far, far better than any man could every hope to understand. There are usually close associations with anxiety, perfectionism, and even obsessive-compulsive disorder. Finally, the thinking is usually quite distant from reality; e.g., they don't see that they are neglecting what is important, their home, for nonsense on the other side of the country. That is, they don't have good life goals and work hard for them; instead they have compulsions, that is, things they do to near exhaustion without knowing why.
Finally, they are not willing to get their happiness from their home and their security from joining with their husband to "take on the world together" and, instead, want to be full of anxiety from feeling persecuted by men, thus, want to compete with men and beat men 'in their own game', etc. Brain-dead.
For all their PBK, etc. accomplishments, they actually are not 'smart' but dumb. I've seen far too many.
Here's some actual good career advice for women: For the big corporations, essentially f'get about those. Instead, nearly all of the US economy is on Main Street. A big advantage here is a geographical barrier to entry: Main Street in Peoria does not compete with Main Street in Paducah.
So, what businesses on Main Street? A good one is to help your husband in such a business. If he drives a taxi, then you can handle the phone calls. If he runs a restaurant, then let him have the back of the house and you handle the front of the house. If he is a lawyer, then you can be the office manager ('COO'). If he is farming 2000 acres, then you can handle the books. If he owns 10 fast food shops, gas stations, convenience stores, pizza shops, etc., then you can help with personnel, staff scheduling, purchasing, leasing, the books, etc.
Else, you can be a CPA, tax lawyer, run a photocopying shop with office supplies, etc. Or there are the two standards -- nursing and K-12 teaching.
These career directions are much more stable than being at the top of a large corporation. Typically you get to put down 'roots' in a community and stay there and not move across the country every few years. Since you and/or your husband own the business, you can't be fired. Since the business meets a solid, continuing need in the economy and is not some strange flash in the pan, your job is stable. Since you have many customers broadly in the economy, you cannot be hurt by just one or a few customers going under and, generally, will do okay unless the whole economy is in the tank. If you are successful, say, grow to 10 McDonald's, then you can do quite well financially, typically better than a large corporation COO. Often you get to bring your children to work and also get them a start in the 'family business'. Such Main Street approaches totally knock the socks off being a big company C-level executive.
Crucial here is for you and your husband to be MARRIED and neither of you neglecting the marriage for something outside -- fast women, slow horses, cheap booze, applause from strangers, status, fame, prestige, saving the whales, oceans, environment, planet, etc.
Finland was a tough little country. They beat the Swedes, the Soviets, and the Nazis. Now Finland is world class in accomplishing the goals of 'feminism'. But, now Finland is losing: Finland is dying. Literally. The Fins are well on the way to being extinct, just as extinct as the Neanderthals. Why? On average, each woman in Finland has only 1.5 children. Finland was able to beat the Swedes, Soviets, and Nazis but is losing to Ms. Sandberg's hero Gloria Steinem, who has no children at all.
Clearly this stuff of woman emphasizing something other than home and family encounters some fundamental 'Darwinian' problems and can't last.
Ms. Sandberg would have women be weak, sick, or dead limbs in the tree: Even if Ms. Sandberg's two children are strong limbs, there are several woman among Ms. Sandberg's nanny and staff who will have a tough time having strong limbs.
So, at present, a large fraction of women of Western European descent are far too eager to strive to crash through glass ceilings and neglect home and family and, thus, are rapidly removing their genes from the gene pool.
We are currently in the period of most rapid change in the gene pool of the last maybe 20,000 years.
Why? Clearly in the past women were strong limbs on the tree whether they really 'wanted' to be or not. Now women have 'options'. In a very few more generations, what will be left are nearly only women who very much want nothing to do with any such 'options'. Whatever changes in the gene pool will be required will have to happen or the whole population of at least Western European descent will, along with Finland, go extinct. Period.