8 ms·

Sheryl Sandberg & Male-Dominated Silicon Valley

82 points by ssclafani 15y ago

johnx123 15y ago
Single page post http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/07/11/110711fa_fact_auletta?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/07/11/110711fa_fact_...
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Rariel 15y ago
It's a little unnerving to see a woman who was propped up and sponsored by men and given every advantage (yes, after working hard--like many others) say there is no glass ceiling. How would she know when she got to ride in the special elevator to the top? It's easy to say there's nothing wrong when you've never encountered the problems that most other women have.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  The only reason she was "propped up" in the first place is because she worked her ass off. I think your comment significantly downplays the extent to which it was her own hard work and good work attitude that got her to where she is now. 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.
  - Rariel 15y ago
    How does my comment significantly downplay "the extent to which it was her own hard work and good work attitude that got her to where she is now?" All I said was that it is unnerving to see somebody who hasn't really had a chance to run in to the glass ceiling say it doesn't exist? She got to side step a lot of the sexism and discrimination other women face because of her sponsorship by powerful respected men. She was sponsored because she was/is exceptional. It doesn't change the fact that she was sponsored and got to side step certain aspects of the more traditional corporate experience many women go through. Sad to hear you think you lack the qualities that make her worth sponsoring but that isn't really relevant to this discussion.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      Working hard and hoping you get noticed by the right people is how just about everybody gets ahead, regardless of reproductive organs. She didn't sidestep a thing. 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".
      - Rariel 15y ago
        "Working hard and hoping you get noticed by the right people is how just about everybody gets ahead" 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.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        Anyone who succeeds as she has is an exception... As for being born into it, I consider that to be a form of nepotism and address it in my other posting.
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
- BasDirks 15y ago
  From what I have read here on HN and elsewhere she's just very, very good. "Propped up and sponsored by men"? Could you elaborate? You're seriously downplaying Sheryl's skills and ethics. And "the problems that most other women have"? Don't let my mother hear that BS, she'd say: "who the hell is most other women"? 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.
  - Rariel 15y ago
    Sure I can elaborate on my "[propping] up and sponsored by men" comment although you questioning that makes me feel like you didn't read the article. That was a consistent theme--people asserting that her attitude about women in business/tech/being under represented was a result of her having a lot of advantages (via men propping her up and sponsoring her) that most women don't have. And I don't know your mother but what I said is hardly BS. I'm sure both she and you know who I mean by "most women" I mean women who make up the vast majority of women in our western society. Women who have to choose between giving their all to their career and having children because unlike Sandberg they don't have nannies or a 50/50 relationship where they can expect their husband to co-parent. Women who aren't mentored by the best of the best and don't have parents who are PhD (dropouts) and Ophthalmologists. I'm not discounting anything she's done--she's remarkable and a brilliant person. But for her to act like other women aren't doing what she's doing because they aren't assertive enough or that the problem lies within their reaction to sexism--give me a break. In the article somebody counters her points on that by saying that Sandberg acts as if this is a meritocracy when it's not--that's spot on. 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.
    - 15y ago
- astrec 15y ago
  Irrespective of sex, you don't get to the c-suites without being sponsored: You need excellent mentors and at minimum one champion. Oh, and a pail of talent and two pails of luck.
  - mnutt 15y ago
    Or you could just start your own company and give yourself whatever c-level title you please.
rokhayakebe 15y ago
I am growing tired of this one item. 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.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- danilocampos 15y ago
  Quite so! Women, all acting as a single unified force, have never once done anything with a computer ever. 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.
  - BasDirks 15y ago
    Parent's comment was in response to a generalization, namely "there is a glass ceiling for women in tech", but I agree that fighting fire with fire isn't the way to go.
  - rokhayakebe 15y ago
    Danilo, technically speaking I am the same camp as the women. In fact I think they are more women in tech holding executive positions than African-Americans, let alone African (which I am). I did not grow up playing with a Commodore 64, all the way up to my first year in university in Dakar (capital of Senegal) I had never heard anyone I knew wanting to become a software engineer. So today I am not going to write or support articles about how we do not have enough black men on the board of leading tech companies.
    - ovi256 15y ago
      Well, you see, this is where you are wrong. Playing victim is a mechanism that has certainly won its place in today's struggle for power in the Western civilization. Guaranteed results! Even better when you have real disadvantage on your side. Some people have made it into careers, entire new markets, and stable revenue streams. White guilt is a studied sociological phenomena for a reason, after all. If you refuse to use it, I salute you.
NY_USA_Hacker 15y ago
Part I 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.
NY_USA_Hacker 15y ago
Part II 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.
sp332 15y ago
At her Phi Beta Kappa induction, there were separate ceremonies for men and women. At hers, a woman gave a speech called “Feeling Like a Fraud.” During the talk, Sandberg looked around the room and saw people nodding. “I thought it was the best speech I’d ever heard,” she recalls. “I felt like that my whole life.” At every stage of her time in school, Sandberg thought, I really fooled them. There was “zero chance,” she concluded, that the men in the other room felt the same. 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_Syndrome 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%93Kruger_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 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?
- nkassis 15y ago
  Yeah it seems a little distanced from reality but in a way if that is motivating her to be better than I guess it's not a bad way to go about it. I mean as long as it doesn't make her action discriminatory why not act like the world is against you and you need to kick back. I see a similar feeling in how most people here view their competitors.
- nbm 15y ago
  Regarding "No man would ever turn down more responsibility": The conversations reported in stories like this lack the full content and context of the situation. Just because you read sentence A and can think of counter-examples, doesn't mean that the person that reportedly said A doesn't know about the counter-examples. 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").
geebee 15y ago
I thought it was an interesting article, but by focusing so heavily on how the career ladder works, I think it missed the point. This article is more about why there are so few female Eric Schmidt's than why there are so few female Mark Zuckerberg's. 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.
NY_Entrepreneur 15y ago
Part I 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.

82 points by ssclafani 15y ago

Single page post http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/07/11/110711fa_fact_auletta?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/07/11/110711fa_fact_...

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Rariel 15y ago

It's a little unnerving to see a woman who was propped up and sponsored by men and given every advantage (yes, after working hard--like many others) say there is no glass ceiling. How would she know when she got to ride in the special elevator to the top? It's easy to say there's nothing wrong when you've never encountered the problems that most other women have.

burgerbrain 15y ago
The only reason she was "propped up" in the first place is because she worked her ass off. I think your comment significantly downplays the extent to which it was her own hard work and good work attitude that got her to where she is now. 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.
- Rariel 15y ago
  How does my comment significantly downplay "the extent to which it was her own hard work and good work attitude that got her to where she is now?" All I said was that it is unnerving to see somebody who hasn't really had a chance to run in to the glass ceiling say it doesn't exist? She got to side step a lot of the sexism and discrimination other women face because of her sponsorship by powerful respected men. She was sponsored because she was/is exceptional. It doesn't change the fact that she was sponsored and got to side step certain aspects of the more traditional corporate experience many women go through. Sad to hear you think you lack the qualities that make her worth sponsoring but that isn't really relevant to this discussion.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    Working hard and hoping you get noticed by the right people is how just about everybody gets ahead, regardless of reproductive organs. She didn't sidestep a thing. 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".
    - Rariel 15y ago
      "Working hard and hoping you get noticed by the right people is how just about everybody gets ahead" 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.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        Anyone who succeeds as she has is an exception... As for being born into it, I consider that to be a form of nepotism and address it in my other posting.
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
BasDirks 15y ago
From what I have read here on HN and elsewhere she's just very, very good. "Propped up and sponsored by men"? Could you elaborate? You're seriously downplaying Sheryl's skills and ethics. And "the problems that most other women have"? Don't let my mother hear that BS, she'd say: "who the hell is most other women"? 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.
- Rariel 15y ago
  Sure I can elaborate on my "[propping] up and sponsored by men" comment although you questioning that makes me feel like you didn't read the article. That was a consistent theme--people asserting that her attitude about women in business/tech/being under represented was a result of her having a lot of advantages (via men propping her up and sponsoring her) that most women don't have. And I don't know your mother but what I said is hardly BS. I'm sure both she and you know who I mean by "most women" I mean women who make up the vast majority of women in our western society. Women who have to choose between giving their all to their career and having children because unlike Sandberg they don't have nannies or a 50/50 relationship where they can expect their husband to co-parent. Women who aren't mentored by the best of the best and don't have parents who are PhD (dropouts) and Ophthalmologists. I'm not discounting anything she's done--she's remarkable and a brilliant person. But for her to act like other women aren't doing what she's doing because they aren't assertive enough or that the problem lies within their reaction to sexism--give me a break. In the article somebody counters her points on that by saying that Sandberg acts as if this is a meritocracy when it's not--that's spot on. 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.
  - 15y ago
astrec 15y ago
Irrespective of sex, you don't get to the c-suites without being sponsored: You need excellent mentors and at minimum one champion. Oh, and a pail of talent and two pails of luck.
- mnutt 15y ago
  Or you could just start your own company and give yourself whatever c-level title you please.

rokhayakebe 15y ago

I am growing tired of this one item. 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.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
danilocampos 15y ago
Quite so! Women, all acting as a single unified force, have never once done anything with a computer ever. 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.
- BasDirks 15y ago
  Parent's comment was in response to a generalization, namely "there is a glass ceiling for women in tech", but I agree that fighting fire with fire isn't the way to go.
- rokhayakebe 15y ago
  Danilo, technically speaking I am the same camp as the women. In fact I think they are more women in tech holding executive positions than African-Americans, let alone African (which I am). I did not grow up playing with a Commodore 64, all the way up to my first year in university in Dakar (capital of Senegal) I had never heard anyone I knew wanting to become a software engineer. So today I am not going to write or support articles about how we do not have enough black men on the board of leading tech companies.
  - ovi256 15y ago
    Well, you see, this is where you are wrong. Playing victim is a mechanism that has certainly won its place in today's struggle for power in the Western civilization. Guaranteed results! Even better when you have real disadvantage on your side. Some people have made it into careers, entire new markets, and stable revenue streams. White guilt is a studied sociological phenomena for a reason, after all. If you refuse to use it, I salute you.

NY_USA_Hacker 15y ago

Part I 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.

NY_USA_Hacker 15y ago

Part II 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.

sp332 15y ago

At her Phi Beta Kappa induction, there were separate ceremonies for men and women. At hers, a woman gave a speech called “Feeling Like a Fraud.” During the talk, Sandberg looked around the room and saw people nodding. “I thought it was the best speech I’d ever heard,” she recalls. “I felt like that my whole life.” At every stage of her time in school, Sandberg thought, I really fooled them. There was “zero chance,” she concluded, that the men in the other room felt the same. 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_Syndrome 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%93Kruger_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 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?

nkassis 15y ago
Yeah it seems a little distanced from reality but in a way if that is motivating her to be better than I guess it's not a bad way to go about it. I mean as long as it doesn't make her action discriminatory why not act like the world is against you and you need to kick back. I see a similar feeling in how most people here view their competitors.
nbm 15y ago
Regarding "No man would ever turn down more responsibility": The conversations reported in stories like this lack the full content and context of the situation. Just because you read sentence A and can think of counter-examples, doesn't mean that the person that reportedly said A doesn't know about the counter-examples. 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").

geebee 15y ago

I thought it was an interesting article, but by focusing so heavily on how the career ladder works, I think it missed the point. This article is more about why there are so few female Eric Schmidt's than why there are so few female Mark Zuckerberg's. 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.

NY_Entrepreneur 15y ago