Impressions: Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In

At first, I wanted to be skeptical about Sheryl Sandberg's book "Lean In." As a pure cynic who enjoys being a contrarian, I've espoused my own views of women in the workplace and feminism in general. I've written about them in this blog, and some contradict what I'll be saying here.

Now that I've actually read Sandberg's book, I found that I agreed with almost everything she said. It helps that she caveats the hell out of it in the beginning: i.e. some women don't want to be leaders, some women are struggling to support their families and don't have a choice in the matter. Her book also does not apply to under developed nations where women get raped all the time and then get blamed for getting raped (because I swear to God, you just can't make that shit up).

So yes, she is targeting a sliver of the female population. I happen to belong to that sliver, which puts pressure on me personally, even though I'm technically lucky to be in that sliver. Sandberg's request of women is to start tipping the scale in our favor when it comes to senior leadership and at least get to 50/50 with men at the top. Her argument is that basically you might feel that the top is an impenetrable boys club, but the more of you who manage to get there, the less difficult and awkward it will be for the women coming after you to get there. And then she offers advice on how to achieve this in a way that  is socially acceptable for a female to do so. Kind of like a Trojan horse if you will. In other words, you still have to be perceived as a "woman," likable and all, whilst making your way to the top. For example, women are, generally speaking, more nurturing than men (note that I am not, a potential problem for me), so helping people is kind of what is expected of them, while for a man helping out is kind of like, holly shit, thank you, I'll return the favor, that sort of thing. I find this to be true in general. While it's hard to explain it, I certainly do feel it. That said, being nice and likable can also be perceived as a weakness. It's a very delicate balance. Some people exude authority and kindness naturally, but it's not the case for many. It's a tough skill to learn.

But the real issues are the internal barriers to success that women create for themselves. Fear and lack of confidence are the biggest factors here. She's right, we hold ourselves back due to fear. But she argues that our fear is often justified because societal stereotypes of females are still very much alive (this, she supports with empirical evidence as most of the arguments she makes in the book). It appears that fear is a mechanism for women by which to adapt to outside expectations. Expectations that can make the difference between whether you have a job or not (or at least in your own perception). Even if you think you were raised fairly by your parents, completely equal to your brother for example, the world at large still clings to subtle, and none so subtle gender stereotypes, and this affects the most enlightened among us. 

I started looking back at my work experiences and yes, the top layers are mostly comprised of men. I have examples that I shouldn't post here in which I felt subtle and none so subtle "discrimination." Sandberg has managed to articulate things I felt but could not put into words myself. Another depressing fact, men are promoted based on potential, women are promoted based on past performance -- which to me is a catch 22 if you're not allowing women to reach up by promoting them. I'm starting to observe male behavior around me and how they clearly feel more comfortable with each other than with women, even though I'm relatively Tom Boyish myself. The other day I was going into a meeting and a male colleague greeted my other male colleague with a very relaxed "hey what's up, man" like they "got" eachother, he's just another dude who played with trucks when he was 5 (again, it's just a feeling I get from body language, nothing I can explain rationally). Another time, whilst checking into the Crowne Plaza at the same time as my boss, the reception guy told me there were no more king size beds and would I be ok with two doubles. I genuinely didn't care about that, but my room turned out to be on the first floor, quite literally in front of a wall. It become clear to me that at the moment the receptionist took a look at me, saw that I was a youngish woman who looked nice and amenable and put me in the worst room in the hotel. It goes without saying they didn't do this to my male 40 something boss. And it's not just me, a female co-worker friend of mine told me of a similar experience in LA where the hotel gave her a crap room, which certainly didn't happen to the men she was traveling with. These are little things that add up to bigger things. And now that I've given it more considerable thought, I am starting to pinpoint moments and systemic issues in my own career that highlight the gender bias. If anything Sandberg's book has managed to frustrate the hell out of me because it's opened my eyes more widely to all of this. One of the big issues that I personally find hard to solve is our biological differences. I don't want the world to go unisex or sexless, but for now, the business world rewards those traits in men that happen to be a result of the fact that they have more testosterone than women. There's nothing we can do about that, but perhaps if there are more women at the top, their biological "gifts" will be seen as critical to the success of a corporation.

With that said, I also think that we win most if we have roughly equal numbers of both genders in senior management. I don't know that the opposite, having many more women in leadership positions than men, would be all that beneficial either. The fashion industry for instance, has a lot of women at the top, and I heard it's a very bitchy and back-stabbing environment. You don't want cat fights either and I think having men around helps temper that negative side of women. But if men are the majority at the top, then those few women in leadership positions will have to live by their rules. It will always be a man's world that we're just living in and adapting to. The more women in leadership positions, the more the scale tips in favor of women as a whole, the less we need to fake being stereotypical acceptable females to get to the top. 

I've been getting the same reaction from everyone who's read the book, no exceptions, the SAME reaction: "I agree with some of it, I disagree with some of it." I understand why they say that; at the same time, if Sandberg is trying to create some kind of a movement, her main message needs to be clear and somewhat idealistic, even at the expense of what some (including myself) might feel is unrealistic or damn right untrue. But offering up half-assed encouragement just won't work for what she is trying to accomplish so I respect her for that.

Thank God for granting me this moment of clarity

You know what I've noticed with the advent of the internet and all its youtube videos and status updates and photos and inspirational quotes and all that sheet? We are so much more emotional now than we ever were. Maybe we were emotional back then, but we are just totally willing to admit that we cry when watching something or reading something or listening to something. The virtual inter-connectedness of our lives means that we cry more and we fess up to the crying. 

The internet is like one big therapy session we can tap into 24/7. Wanna feel sad? There's a video for that. Wanna laugh? There's a site for that. Wanna feel angry and verbally pound someone? There are comments sections everywhere for that. Wanna pour your heart out to the world? There are thousands of forums and dozens of blogging platforms. It's like emotions are the main currency of the internet because we are protected by the barrier of not actually having to see and be with people, the very same people who are the impetus of all this emotion. I can't believe I've admitted to crying to all these documentaries when I've always viewed crying as a sign of weakness in real life. There's no crying in corporate America UNLESS it's in the privacy of your own bathroom stall and you are muffling those sobs to death people. The fear of physically being around people is removed on the internet so turn on the faucet and let it all hang out, cause on here, you're rewarded for your emotions. Out in the real world, put on your emotional forcefield because no one wants to see you get all mushy or angry or too overly happy. Especially not too overly happy. 

I make fun of everything in my head

This is neither constructive nor productive and might require therapy, except that I make myself laugh every day regardless of whether it's funny, which is pretty therapeutic. Let's just call it a coping mechanism I use against our cruel world. 

Here are some things I've thought deeply about recently. 

1) Inspirational quotes photoshopped on pictures of sunsets.

"The stupid man walks alone, the wise man stands with others." Share if you have faith in people. (Don't share if you don't). 

I didn't share = I hate people.

2) Those mustache on a stick photos. Don't people think about the germs on those things? I'm not even obsessed with germs and it grosses me out. 

 3) In my opinion, there are two kinds of people in the world, those who go to Burning Man and those who don't. I recently mentioned to a friend who goes that it wasn't really my thing, and he was like, how do you know it's not your thing? You've never been. It's whatever you want to make of it (how Burning Man of him). So, to be fair, I will explain why I feel this way visually: 

 


4) The Harlem Shake: I will never get rich because there is no way I could have ever predicted that something like the Harlem Shake would have become a viral hit. How depressing.

5) Central Park cyclists yell at me systematically for almost killing me during a Sunday walk. Yes, I get yelled at for almost dying. Apparently, I'm interrupting the Tour de France every time I try to cross the street. 

6) I've been seeing a lot of articles, quotes and posts lately attempting to absolve parents, and mostly mothers, from intense guilt when it comes to raising their children imperfectly, whatever that means. I think that's cool since, I mean, up until like 60 years ago, people didn't pay that much attention to their kids. Then we became the society in which the Kid is King. With that said, my big pet issue is absolving regular people from the guilt of not being extraordinary. The film "Hilary and Jackie" comes to mind here, specifically, a quote that has stayed with me since 1998: If you think being an ordinary person is any easier than being an extraordinary one, you're wrong. A-fucking-Men to that.

7) Honor is so totally overrated. 

8) There's all sorts of privilege floating around in the world; there's white privilege, male privilege, beauty privilege, wealth privilege, blonde privilege, intelligence privilege, developed nation privilege, pregnant privilege. Basically, if you don't fall within those privilege pods, you're fucked. 

9) I constantly need to remind myself that finishing season 3 of Breaking Bad or watching a House of Cards marathon is not, in and of itself, an accomplishment.

10) The other day, I realized that the best thing you could do for your kids' careers is to raise them in England, get them some English accents, and watch them soar up the corporate American ladder. The weather may suck, but you'll thank me in 20 years.

11) Why are "small businesses" always represented in commercials and films by women who own cupcake shops? You'd think that every woman's dream is to own a cupcake shop and every man's dream is to write children's books. My dream is to own a small multinational cyber-security firm.

12) I saw this commercial for L'Oreal "Miracle Blur" the other night: Erase the look of lines, pores, wrinkles. I have a way better, more convincing tagline > Miracle Blur. Erase Your Face. Because you're worth it.

Feminism: Alive, Well, Kicking

In the last year, we've seen a flurry of articles about women. Women who can't have it all, women who are deciding to be homemakers over careerists, women who can afford short maternity leaves, and let's not forget, women who lean in.

All of these articles and book(s), at one point or another, ponder the question: are we letting down our foremothers in their fight for total gender equality, is feminism dead? While it's healthy to keep asking ourselves that question, I'd like to now answer it with an unequivocal NO, feminism is not dead in America. And the very reason I know this is because we ask ourselves the question approximately every week in the media. A month from now, there will be a long form article in the Atlantic Monthly titled Is Feminism Dead Now? 3 months later, How 'bout now? 6 Months later Did Sheryl Sandberg Inadvertently Just Kill Feminism?

There are a few modern day societal truths we need to recognize when it comes to discussing feminism in general: 

1) Nowadays most households need two incomes to stay afloat. It's actually a luxury for a woman to make the decision to stay home for the kids. Not that it can't happen from time to time, say if one loses his or her job, a couple can tighten their belts and live off of one for a bit, but generally speaking, having the ability to live off of one income means you're one of the lucky few. So basically, women in the workplace is a fact of life that will probably never go away. When given a choice, women have, well, the choice. A choice indicates that the decision is theirs, which was not the case back in the 50s.

2) Feminism is so alive, we barely talk about straight men anymore when discussing gender. In all these articles about women, men are very one- dimensional. The last time I saw an actual article about men was in 2010 and it stated that the end of men had arrived. Before that, it was all about metrosexuals, essentially, the feminization of men. In print media at the very least, we've managed to emasculate men pretty well. In real life, there seems to be a group that has accepted their new fate, another that seems to react violently against it. 

3) Not all women, just like not all men, should be leaders. I don't mean to say hey we can't all be Sheryl Sandberg, but hey, we can't all be Sheryl Sandberg (and by we I mean you). I'm going to throw in a whole bunch of men into that pile too. Women and men are different, but on this fact, they aren't all that different. I personally don't believe that the fact that there are less women in leadership positions is a result of men holding them down, except maybe in very sexist and cromagnon environments like the financial industry.

So back to the now age old question, is feminism dead? It seems pretty clear that the idea behind it, that women should and can do anything men can, is alive and well. Obviously though, the conversation has evolved and become more subtle. We're realizing the impact that a more powerful female population has on gender overall and it's not simple by any means. If women are changing, men have to change as well, as do the children they raise. There are ripple effects on society that we couldn't necessarily foresee. The post-feminist world is not anti-feminist, it's just one in which new complexities in gender relations have emerged. For instance, there is still a lot of confusion  when it comes to women and men regarding their conduct towards sex and relationships. Men don't really know how to act anymore, women think they need to aggressively demand that men treat them like the Godesses they are even though they are totally not Godesses but human beings, and the best they can ask for is to be treated with the respect they deserve, but whatever. It's all kind of a mess. There aren't clear cut laws we can implement as we do in the workplace to dictate romantic behavior (besides the "no means no" rule which is essentially a law). This leaves some folks yearning for yesterday when dating and mating were simpler because they followed suit from entrenched gender roles. 

Another confusing aspect of the blurring of gender roles is child rearing and household chores. It is known that infants need their mothers most in those first months of life, it is known that that women tend to be more efficient at cleaning the house than men are. The latter is generalized, but still, the majority of women are better at that stuff than men. There are things that men tend to be better at than women like fixing things and faking it til they make it (see leadership positions above). Know that these days, when we do talk about men in general, it tends to be to point out their failures (less men attend college than women, they tend to do more poorly when they do, the male blue collar worker is in decline and suffering). And we say that sort of triumphantly to point out how far women have come. We're right to encourage and empower women, but I don't believe it should be at the expense of men. We know what happens when a gender is oppressed. Shouldn't we, as a society, encourage both men and women? Total gender equality is far from a utopic state in my opinion. Double standards exist on both sides and while some are unfortunate, I think they're rooted in our biology more than our psyche, i.e. they probably won't change much. Men are good at shit and women are good at shit and they just need to play up their strengths and not try to outplay eachother. What we need to focus on is rewarding these strengths as equally as possible. I actually think that this is where "feminism" should head next.

Note: A lot of the above doesn't necessarily apply to the developing world, where feminism has yet to actually be born.