Sheryl Sandberg and the Lean-In movement

Having children changes everything for women. It always has, it always will.

Statistics tell you most if not all of those young women in Whitman's office will turn on a dime and sing a different tune within 10 years time.

The sooner we stop pretending that putting a daycare at the office solves all problems, the better off we'll all be going forward.

 

Azrael, sometimes I think those bylines are all that matters. I often read the Double X blog at Slate and I swear most of it is a self-knowing exercise in constructing insincere objections and counter-arguments. Blog post: Marissa Mayer says she's not a feminist, here's why she's not! Blog post: Marissa Meyer says she's not a feminist, here's why she really is! Blog post: Sheryl Sandberg says she's not a feminist, but she also posits feminist ideas! Here's why she's not! Blog post: Sheryl Sandberg says she's not a feminist, here's why she is!

We're so many levels beyond descriptors like irony or sarcasm when we have feminists raking each other over the coals for being incorrectly feminist, then raking each other the coals for not supporting other feminists, then criticizing that distinctions like correct or incorrect feminism still matter, all followed by Hanna Roisin's husband allowing her once again to remind everyone to buy her book.

 

Granted, accountants are much more logical than most of us, but PwC (I believe it was) for one really upgraded their maternity leave policy to include more paid leave as well as a greater allowance for unpaid leave, and they experienced a marked increase in the retention of talented female mothers after childbirth. Start treating motherhood a little different than any other FMLA illness/disability -- isn't it kind of insulting that so many women have to go on short-term disability to qualify for partially paid maternity leave? -- and perhaps women will have more of an interest or incentive to return to their employer.

 

Found this review of her book interesting:

http://online.wSportsJournalists.com/article/SB10001424127887324735304578356643109954604.html
[Might be paid content. If so, sorry]

Find a contradiction in her premise that there really are no differences between men and women to justify the former's greater advancement up corporate ladders or the latter's traditionally bigger role in domesticity. Yet there allegedly are all sorts of reasons why women would make better CEOs, the world would be a better place and so on.

Also, challenges women to push harder and be more single-minded. Then bellyaches about the things society ought to be doing to facilitate their rise.

So which is it: See the ball, be the ball? Or use the ladies' tees?

 

Great post.

 

Her basic premise seems to be, just be so exceptional that any institutional sexism or other barriers to entry are irrelevant. This is why she constantly contradicts herself. She wants to say "let's empower women" while simultaneously showing that she made it despite numerous obstacles.

We see this all the time in old ballplayers. "Well, sure, they deserve to get paid, but in my day, we played for the love the game" ... "Well, sure, they have XYZ modern advantages, but I succeeded without any of those. Those XYZ are their rights but I would've kicked even more ass if I had those advantages" ... "I had to work so hard just to be there, so while people today should take advantage of modern training/technology/tactics, they should never forget that I got to the top without any of that."

 

Certainly, be more aggressive pursuing the things you want. Good advice to any woman, ir man. So,if you don't pursue, that is on you. But if you pursue and you are damn good at it and everyone knows it, but the guy with the connections or the right diploma or two kids to support but liitle skill gets it...well, that's *still* real in this country.
as with so many issues it's some of this and some of that which requires all sides to assess behavoir, not just women.

 

This would not go over well with my ole feminist homegirls from college, but I think women's bigger role in domesticity is biological. It's got little to do with society or tradition.

Our biology holds us back in the workplace.

I know this because I see all the mothers who work full time still being the one to make the lion's share of the domestic decisions. We have to, it's our biological calling.

I used to consider myself a feminist. I was interested in feminist history. I took courses on feminist theory and wrote feminist papers in school. I read feminist poets.

Since having kids, I'm not even sure what a feminist is anymore.

Nor do I give a rat's ass.

 

Luggy, stop making so goddamn much sense. You're going to get kicked out of the womyn's movement.

 

Makes sense to me. Don't understand the crusade in some quarters to deny difference in biology, which seems like railing at the heavens. Equal doesn't equal same.

 

Why would they? They're human, prone to all the same foibles as men.

I'm perfectly fine with women being leaders in any field. But I'd prefer they were leaders in self-sacrifice, which is more valuable -- to community, to the future -- than ascending to some title in a social media firm.

 

Without comment I present Russian maternity law:

"A child's parent or a guardian, who actually takes care of the child, is entitled to partially paid childcare leave until the child is three years old. Maternity leave compensation is funded by the Russian State Social Insurance Fund.
The employee retains the right to return to his/her job during the entire period of paid/unpaid leave, and the full leave period is included when calculating the employee's length of service."