An Open Letter to Sheryl Sandberg from a Twenty-Something Woman in Tech
techendo.co
techendo.co
I'm not saying that I agree with her; and tech is far worse than most other industries about being male-dominated. Really, the bullshit workaholic culture at many companies is the root of the problem, but it's something that varies on a company-by-company basis.
It may be true in some circumstances that it will be possible for a specific individual to get further ahead by participating in a bad/sick/oppressive/etc system, but advising women that if they just participate in the patriarchy for awhile, and work really hard, they'll succeed, is not an acceptable message. It perpetuates the problem rather than moving to solve it.
It's like advising people who are concerned about our lack of choice in politics to shut up & vote, rather than to work to reform /how/ we vote.
No. That's the whole point of this article. The bullshit is bullshit. Let's cut it out.
This is especially true in this case. You don't have the option of not participating and instead trying to change the system from the outside, because doing so directly harms your income and therefore livelihood.
So I really don't understand this rant against SS. The goal of her book wasn't to promote unhappiness, it was just to share her very meaningful advice which applies to a lot of people (but not everybody).
Our industry has a real problem with work life balance, this is why there aren't more women in tech. Because they are smarter then us and they realize its a bum deal.
I don't know about you but I am thankful every day of my life that I was interested in tech because otherwise I wouldn't have been able to enjoy the insanely comfortable life we have.
I'm merely pointing out that if you don't find 60h weeks at your job fulfilling, it doesn't make much sense to chase more work and more responsibilities when the marginal utility of a dollar is pretty shitty past ~$100k anyways.
"Tech" is an insanely broad classification in the first place. You're in a very distinct minority of it.
My friends in other industries work 40 hour weeks and make just as much as I do. Hell, I know a plumber and an electrician who both make more than I do, and they both work less than 40 hours a week. I am being pressured into working evenings, weekends and all through christmas to meet an arbitrary deadline while they keep adding more features to be finished by that deadline. Step outside of your little bubble and look around at the rest of the world, it isn't your fantasy.
Six figure salary? "Lazily"?
I'm sorry, on which planet are these options available?
Work is important. Being good at what you do and recognized for it is vital. But so is spending time at the dog park and going camping and lazy Sundays. It's easy to get sucked into working too hard when you're fresh out of college and have nothing else going on in your life, but that is not the road to happiness.
Probably not. It might make you happier, but it probably won't get you to the top. Almost universally, the people at the top are those who know how to and are willing to play the game. And as a factual matter, a hugely disproportionate percentage of the people at the top are married men whose wives don't work, with all of the advantage that entails.
First of all, credibility. Sheryl's words have made it so far because she has succeeded in her career and is trying to explain to others what she thinks you should do to get where she is. The author of this letter hasn't experienced success and therefore shouldn't have enough of an idea what it takes to succeed to agree or disagree with Sheryl.
Second of all, I don't think the author of the letter even knows what Lean In means. It seems like her interpretation of the definition is to lean in to your work and grind through 80 hour weeks such that you don't have time to take care of yourself, be happy, or even do your own household chores. I haven't read Lean In personally but my impression was that the definition was more along the lines of ignoring all of the existing gender bias and having the self-confidence to set goals and go for them.
Perhaps the goal you set is to be happy, or to do your laundry once a week, or to stay fit, or to have a happy relationship. Your goals don't need to be corporate/career ones. I don't think the goals of the letter's author necessarily contradict Sheryl's points.
And, also, what is your definition of "success"?
Perhaps she's experienced some level of success, thanks for correcting me/acknowledging the hole in my argument, but I think it's safe to assume that she hasn't experienced the same level of success as Sheryl.
> "I haven't read lean in personally..." - point invalid.
Why are you're weighing in and saying this is a terrible argument when you can't provide any substantial or supporting evidence.
I am weighing in because I care immensely about women in tech and feminism and disagree with the point of view portrayed in the letter.
Am I not allowed to share my opinion because I haven't read the book she's violently disagreeing with? Just because I haven't read the book doesn't mean I haven't seen Sheryl speak numerous times and don't understand her point.
That the difference is glossed over so blithely makes me skeptical.
> I have no problem with leaning in. Really I don't. If you are going to puke on someone's shoes, you had best lean in a little, lest the spatter hit your own glorious footwear. [..] But if it's real, substantive change we're after, then we'd best be talking about organizing and collective action.
http://scientopia.org/blogs/thusspakezuska/2013/09/13/you-le...
It bothered me enough that I bought the Kindle edition just now so I could cite what's actually in the book (I originally read it in hard copy form.)
This quote from the book showcases the point Lean In is making:
"A few years ago, I hosted a meeting for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner at Facebook. We invited fifteen executives from across Silicon Valley for breakfast and a discussion about the economy. Secretary Geithner arrived with four members of his staff, two senior and two more junior, and we all gathered in our one nice conference room.
After the usual milling around, I encouraged the attendees to help themselves to the buffet and take a seat. Our invited guests, mostly men, grabbed plates and food and sat down at the large conference table. Secretary Geithner’s team, all women, took their food last and sat in chairs off to the side of the room. I motioned for the women to come sit at the table, waving them over so they would feel welcomed. They demurred and remained in their seats.
The four women had every right to be at this meeting, but because of their seating choice, they seemed like spectators rather than participants. I knew I had to say something. So after the meeting, I pulled them aside to talk.
I pointed out that they should have sat at the table even without an invitation, but when publicly welcomed, they most certainly should have joined. At first, they seemed surprised, then they agreed. It was a watershed moment for me. A moment when I witnessed how an internal barrier can alter women’s behavior. A moment when I realized that in addition to facing institutional obstacles, women face a battle from within."
In reading the book, I didn't find Sandberg accusing women of not doing enough--like this article seems to imply. Rather, she's pointing out barriers to women becoming leaders--barriers that we as women are probably not even conscious of. In that way, I found the book incredibly helpful.
I should note I was predisposed to not like the book based on articles I'd read, but I am a voracious reader and I wanted to see for myself what Sandberg was saying. The book opened my eyes to small but significant behavior and language changes I could make to be taken more seriously as a leader, and in that way, I am grateful.
If the article writer hasn't read the book, I respectfully ask her to before dishing out criticism--if there is a valid point in the book that she is inclined to criticize, then I will listen with an open mind. But as it stands right now, I don't find this criticism-without-citation productive.
Sigh.
Quote from @ericabiz: "In reading the book, I didn't find Sandberg accusing women of not doing enough"
I have not read the book, but in the specific passage you quote Sandberg is explicitly telling these women they have not done enough.
You seem to have missed the OP's point -- that Sandberg makes the assumption that theses women could not have authentically preferred being not to be at the table.
The difference between:
You're not doing enough! Try harder!
I just realized, we're not doing enough
What exactly it is that is "not enough" is also contextually important. If you are simply not pulling your weight, you are not doing enough and that's all there is to it. If you are pulling twice your weight, to say you are not doing enough is insulting.
Why exactly my wife is so brainwashed that even when I make 5.2 times money she does, she still needs to go to work which costs us more than her paycheck once we pay for the childcare and food. Her work is net negative to home budget. Unfortunately, she doesn't get it because as her mom says "women MUST work".
Any surprise Western Civilization is in decline?
Because you're reading a forum called Hacker News.
And then women don't really get dirty, dangerous jobs. They want only equality in safe, clean nice offices.
Because when fathers do actually contest custody, they usually get joint or sole custody? http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias... ("These trends were apparent in an earlier study of a sample of 500 Middlesex County cases filed between 1978 and 1981. Fathers had sought sole custody in about 8% of the cases. They received sole custody in 41% of those cases, and joint custody in 38%. In 5% of the cases, custody went to someone other than a parent. In instances in which fathers sought sole custody, mothers received sole custody in only 15% of the cases.").
> Why exactly my wife is so brainwashed that even when I make 5.2 times money she does, she still needs to go to work which costs us more than her paycheck once we pay for the childcare and food.
Because she can do math and realizes that while child care expenses are temporary (and drop off substantially in just 5-6 years once children enter school), the lifetime impact on earnings from taking time off to raise children is substantial and permanent?
I'll quote the relevant part:
""" Although perceptions of bias that discourage fathers from seeking custody are a concern, n52 the outcome of cases in which custody is contested provides a more direct source of information about possible judicial gender bias. We heard testimony from George Kelly, a representative of Concerned Fathers, that in contested custody cases, mothers are awarded physical custody over 90% of the time. Mr. Kelly was unable to provide substantiation, however, n53 and our own investigation revealed a very different picture.
The statewide sample of attorneys who responded to the family law survey had collectively represented fathers seeking custody in over 2,100 cases in the last 5 years. n54 They reported that the fathers obtained primary physical custody in 29% of the cases, and joint physical custody in an additional 65% of the cases. Thus, when fathers actively sought physical custody, mothers obtained primary physical custody in only 7% of cases. The attorneys reported that the fathers had been primary caretakers in 29% of the cases in which they had sought custody.
The preliminary findings of the Middlesex Divorce Research Group relitigation study show a similarly high rate of paternal success, but fewer awards of joint physical custody. In their sample of 700 cases in Middlesex County between 1978 and 1984, fathers had sought custody in 57 cases (8.14% of the sample). In two-thirds of the cases in which fathers sought custody, they received primary physical custody (42% in which fathers were awarded sole legal and sole physical custody, plus [*832] 25% in which fathers were awarded joint legal and primary physical custody). Joint physical and joint legal custody was awarded in 3.5% of cases. In 11% of the cases, mothers received primary physical and joint legal custody; in 12%, mothers were awarded sole legal and physical custody; other custodial arrangements were ordered in the remaining cases. Thus, when fathers sought custody, mothers received primary physical custody in fewer than one-quarter of the cases in the Middlesex study. Information about which parent had been the primary caretaker was not available for the Middlesex cases.
These trends were apparent in an earlier study of a sample of 500 Middlesex County cases filed between 1978 and 1981. Fathers had sought sole custody in about 8% of the cases. They received sole custody in 41% of those cases, and joint custody in 38%. In 5% of the cases, custody went to someone other than a parent. In instances in which fathers sought sole custody, mothers received sole custody in only 15% of the cases (Phear et al., 1983).
These statistics may be a surprise to many. They are, however, consistent with findings in other states. A study of court records in Los Angeles County, California, in 1977 found that fathers who sought sole custody obtained it in 63% of the cases (up from a success rate of 37% in 1972) (Weitzman, 1985, p. 233). A nationwide survey of all reported appellate decisions in child custody cases in 1982 found that fathers obtained custody in 51% of the cases, up from an estimated 10% in 1980 (Atkinson, 1984).
The high success rate of fathers does not by itself establish gender bias against women. Additional evidence, however, indicates that women may be less able to afford the lawyers and experts needed in contested custody cases (see "Family Law Overview") and that, in contested cases, different and stricter standards are applied to mothers. """
Now, try discussing that. Beceause this is what you'll get once you'll present a study showing men are better soldiers than women to a feminist. And nobody cares. Equality at the Army, period. Actually special treatment for women because apparently they need to run just 4 miles to get to the Marines when males have to run 6 miles. Because obviously the enemy will stop 2 miles short just to treat our female soldiers better than others. Or like this precious thing that a women in the uniform can't have be moving machine gun. It is too heavy for her for goodness sake. This is all about special treatment and not equality.
So maybe that's how we (males) should start rolling as well. 50% cases children go to the fathers, period. If you don't agree you are a sexist xenophobic in need of a psychological treatment for aggression impulses and the whole study is a hate speech.
"I agree with something you never said" is a 14-year-old's debate tactic, right up there with "stop hitting yourself". Which is unsurprising, because the logic of "MensRights" is mired in about the same developmental stage.
Why would anyone take you seriously ever again after you wrote a comment like this? I do not know, and think that they should not.
That's how I know I talk to a feminist.
Other left-wingers like Marxists - you need to spend some time showing them your argumentation before they give up and do that. Start attacking a person instead of attacking argumentation or addressing issues.
Feminists go to that right away. Again, not surprised at all. You are very angry group of people indeed. And that's why in most polls women disagree with feminists. Nobody likes angry mean person who attacks messenger instead of addressing issues calmly.
So, why not to, start social marxist change also in court rulings. Let's explain fathers they should take responsibility for children in 50% of divorce cases. Let's have legislation enforcing that. Let's have think-tanks to make it happen.
I don't really care, I love working with women. My only problem is that things born in Marxist ideology like feminism are making social experiments on us whether we want it or not. And none of these left wing dreamed of social experiments work.
Why are we putting all these women under so much pressure? You have to be in IT. There are not enough women there. You must be good in IT. And what about this what women want to do? Women's psyche is more gentle than ours. You show thin teens on magazine covers long enough and next thing you know you deal with anorexia/bulimia pandemic. You create social pressure for them not to have kids, to delay having family, to go there and compete in brutal business world. What gives you right to do that?
Have you read the article under which we are commenting? The author is not happy. She definitely feels like her life choices were forced upon her. All I'm saying is that this is wrong. You don't feel social pressure to be a good cook, or spend 8 hours a day with a kid. Feminism hurts women, not men. This is what the article shows.
A review of the cases does not support your claim. 8% of fathers demand custody because 8% of fathers feel the mother is so bad that the children are better off with the father. The fact that they generally win in such cases is expected, but can not be generalized to imply that if fathers simply seek custody more often, they will still get it that often. When they seek custody in cases where the mother is not abusive, they lose.
Here's an example (from my example professions). Women in the police forces used to be relegated to meter maids, secretarial/administrative roles and other "safe" jobs. Promotion into positions like detective were not open, or only open for the rare ones that caught the right persons attention or had some other pull (family, political, whatever) or the one who did 10x what their male colleagues did to show they were capable. Today those barriers are gone (going away?).
To the extent there are institutional barriers that prevent women from being able to get those jobs if they want them, those barriers should be torn down. But the reason that's not happening as fast isn't because women don't want those jobs, it's because no one wants those jobs. So for my part, I'm more concerned with the social factors -- gender, but more likely class politics -- that lead to anyone needing to do shitty dangerous work who doesn't really want to.
In brief, if society would collapse without them, we should be paying them a lot more, not relying on bullshit machismo and a lack of options. I consider that a feminist position.
[1] in the UK
One of the reasons left is not at all that popular when it should be, for example in Greece, is that it forgot about its ideology and sold out to the capital. Hence feminist parties in Europe never above 1% vote. Hence Greek left is done and neo-nazis topping the polls. Once you sold your soul to the devil there is no coming back Mr. let's get CEO jobs for women.
So if you want political advise it would be don't be a whore sold to the capital. The age of conformism and technocrats in politics is over. It is all about the ground work, grassroots and standing for something in life nowadays. And I don't see feminists there. I see them in 100 richest and most powerful capitalist club instead. You are a fake.