4 ms·

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

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.
- paganel 15y ago
  > "In January of 1991, Summers became the chief economist at the World Bank, and that spring he recruited Sandberg as a research assistant." I don't care how smart or good you are, without certain connections you're not going to get a research associateship at the world bank. TIL The current FB COO worked as a research assistant at the World Bank. Sometimes I want to blame my parents for being just a pair of middle-aged farmers in an Eastern-European country, when they could have had guys like Summers as their friend and a mansion in Hamptons if they had worked hard enough.</sarcasm>
  - stayjin 15y ago
    I guess it depends in how you measure those things. A quote I like is: "What one faces in his/her life is destiny. How he/she faces it is personal choice". We are what we make ourselves into. With our last breath we stop fighting for our goals. She is not more or less successful than one fighting to make her monthly wage. She was in a different playground, that's all. If she fought well to get where she is, good for her. If not, well there is not much there for a hacker to admire, is there?
    - ovi256 15y ago
      His point is that even if you face your destiny in the best possible way (to put it in your terms), if your destiny does not include Harvard professors that move to the World Bank, there won't be any articles in the New Yorker about you.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  Her connection with Summers was an academic/professional one that she formed herself. She earned the respect of the right person, and reaped the rewards for doing so. If it were some sort of nepotism then you might have a point, but since it's not it really just shows the opposite of what you suggest. It shows that women are able to improve their own station in exactly the same way men do. And had it been nepotism, it would show nothing more than women can do it the other way men do it as well. Can most women do this to the degree she has? No. Just like most men can't.

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.

paganel 15y ago
> "In January of 1991, Summers became the chief economist at the World Bank, and that spring he recruited Sandberg as a research assistant." I don't care how smart or good you are, without certain connections you're not going to get a research associateship at the world bank. TIL The current FB COO worked as a research assistant at the World Bank. Sometimes I want to blame my parents for being just a pair of middle-aged farmers in an Eastern-European country, when they could have had guys like Summers as their friend and a mansion in Hamptons if they had worked hard enough.</sarcasm>
- stayjin 15y ago
  I guess it depends in how you measure those things. A quote I like is: "What one faces in his/her life is destiny. How he/she faces it is personal choice". We are what we make ourselves into. With our last breath we stop fighting for our goals. She is not more or less successful than one fighting to make her monthly wage. She was in a different playground, that's all. If she fought well to get where she is, good for her. If not, well there is not much there for a hacker to admire, is there?
  - ovi256 15y ago
    His point is that even if you face your destiny in the best possible way (to put it in your terms), if your destiny does not include Harvard professors that move to the World Bank, there won't be any articles in the New Yorker about you.
burgerbrain 15y ago
Her connection with Summers was an academic/professional one that she formed herself. She earned the respect of the right person, and reaped the rewards for doing so. If it were some sort of nepotism then you might have a point, but since it's not it really just shows the opposite of what you suggest. It shows that women are able to improve their own station in exactly the same way men do. And had it been nepotism, it would show nothing more than women can do it the other way men do it as well. Can most women do this to the degree she has? No. Just like most men can't.