8 ms·

An Open Letter to Sheryl Sandberg from a Twenty-Something Woman in Tech

54 points by lowglow 13y ago

exelius 13y ago
"Lean in" in my mind is about playing the bullshit political games. Your twenty-something male co-workers? They have the same insecurities and reservations as you do. But the system works better for them because the people at the top are more often than not men. So the only way women are going to be able to re-shape the system in a way that works better for women is to put up with the obnoxious bullshit politics for a while. 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.
- zorpner 13y ago
  > So the only way women are going to be able to re-shape the system in a way that works better for women is to put up with the obnoxious bullshit politics for a while. 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.
  - makomk 13y ago
    I have never met any person who isn't somehow perpetuting the patriarchy, nor seen evidence any they exist - not even amongst radical feminists.
  - carriemelissa 13y ago
    BAM! Yes!
- carriemelissa 13y ago
  "So the only way women are going to be able to re-shape the system in a way that works better for women is to put up with the obnoxious bullshit politics for a while." - I'm sorry... WHAT? No. That's the whole point of this article. The bullshit is bullshit. Let's cut it out.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    Sometimes the only way to change the system is from the inside because your influence on the system is directly proportional to how seriously the system's leaders and participants take you. 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.
redthrowaway 13y ago
This is as true for men as it is for women. We face different societal pressures, but those pressures do exist and it is impossible to fulfill all of the expectations placed upon us by society/ourselves. 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.
ekanes 13y ago
Totally valid points, but the post is about work-life balance, and not really anything to do with women in tech. While women absolutely do have it harder in tech, and different work-life balance challenges, making it an Open Letter! is a bit dramatic. Make the balance choices that are right for you, no matter if you're a man or woman.
wavesounds 13y ago
This is the best post I've read on HN in 2013. 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.
- arasmussen 13y ago
  You're joking right? Is this sarcasm? Work life balance? A bum deal? We get paid a six figure salary on top of getting fed breakfast, lunch, and dinner on a daily basis to work lazily for realistically 6-7 hours a day and then head home with more hours of free time per day than our friends in other industries (finance, medicine, law, you name it) have who are making half a tech salary or working twice the hours. 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.
  - wavesounds 13y ago
    Don't know where your working. To get ahead a most companies I know of, working 60 hour weeks is a given. Thats why they provide free food and stuff, so you can spend as much time as possible working.
    - aianus 13y ago
      Why do you need to get ahead when the entry-level salary is already more than one can realistically spend improving their happiness?
      - pm90 13y ago
        Why does Apple need to charge price stuff so high when the profits it makes is already more than what it can realistically spend on improving its investors happiness?
        aianus 13y ago
rayiner 13y ago
> What will get you to the top and still have you loving life? Taking leaps of faith, laughing at the naysayers, blowing off people who ignore you, caring about people and organizations that make you healthier and that care about the core of you rather than what you can simply do for them, celebrating your family and friends and all the love that you can create together. 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.
arasmussen 13y ago
This is a terrible argument. 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.
- carriemelissa 13y ago
  Do you know who the author is? And, also, what is your definition of "success"?
  - arasmussen 13y ago
    She's a woman in tech in her twenties. 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.
    - enraged_camel 13y ago
      Doesn't it come down to how you define success?
      - girvo 13y ago
        Someone would say that was pretty much the articles point. Which a lot of people seem to be missing in their haste to defend "Lean In"?
PavlovsCat 13y ago
"Leaning in", where have I read that before... ah, got it: > 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-lean-in-to-puke-you-organize-for-change/ http://scientopia.org/blogs/thusspakezuska/2013/09/13/you-le...
m1117 13y ago
I want to criticize Lean In, but kinda something feels guilty inside me cuz I'm a man... That's why I wanted to hear some critics from females side. But how do we know that it's not a fake post and not written by 35 years old male as a joke?
- lowglow 13y ago
  It's written by a woman. No joke here.
- johnbm 13y ago
  Congratulations, you've been convinced to loathe yourself because of other people's insecurities.
- theorique 13y ago
  What did you dislike about it, or think needs to be criticized? We won't judge you because you're a man - this is the internet! It's a meritocracy, and your critical opinions will stand or fall on their own value alone.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  >>Just do your job like any other gender and absolutely nobody will give two cents about what shape is in your pants. Except people do care about gender. Studies have conclusively established that men and women earn drastically different amounts of money even if they do the same jobs. Men are also much more likely to be picked for promotions over women even if their performance is worse. Honestly your comment is extremely ignorant and you would do well to go and educate yourself.
- MartinCron 13y ago
  People keep bringing it up because some people haven't yet figured out that helping women isn't at all about hurting men. You can help with that. Seriously.
birken 13y ago
I don't think SS is saying this is the only way to be happy in her book. I think she is saying that if you are a woman and you want to be successful in the business world, here are a bunch of stories and anecdotes talking about life is more difficult for you, but you can persevere if you work really hard. I don't think she says the system is fair, and I also don't remember SS saying choosing other lifestyles is wrong. 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).
- MartinCron 13y ago
  Yeah, she goes really really far out of her way to say that her approach isn't the only one.
LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
Why exactly I don't see these many discussion about women in construction industry as I see about women in IT? Why exactly I don't see any discussion about courts giving children to their fathers in 50% of 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. 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?
- jwoah12 13y ago
  > Why exactly I don't see these many discussion about women in construction industry as I see about women in IT? Because you're reading a forum called Hacker News.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    BS. Because the feminists are interested only in equality in highly paid jobs for women.
    - asdasf 13y ago
      Construction jobs are highly paid.
      - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
        BS again. I take my 60-100 use/hr vs. construction 20-30usd/hr any second. And then women don't really get dirty, dangerous jobs. They want only equality in safe, clean nice offices.
        asdasf 13y ago
        You go right ahead and keep on pretending you make $200k/year then, I'm sure if you pretend hard enough it will suddenly become relevant.
ericabiz 13y ago
I'm having a difficult time reconciling this article to what I actually read when I read Lean In...to the point where I don't think the author of this article has actually read the book. 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.
- 13y ago
EGreg 13y ago
Controversy sells. Calling out someone famous gets you noticed. Done.
girvo 13y ago
Good advice regardless of who you are: chill out, and work towards actual happiness. Regardless of what that means for you, although id usually wager that playing others bullshit games probably isn't going to be it. At least is usually isn't for me!
cafard 13y ago
As a male in late middle age, I'm not the target audience of either the book or the letter. I would agree with the writer that Lean In is of very limited applicability. I would qualify this by saying that "self-esteem, peace, confidence to take leaps of faith, and well-rounded happiness" are not necessarily best sought directly.

54 points by lowglow 13y ago

"Lean in" in my mind is about playing the bullshit political games. Your twenty-something male co-workers? They have the same insecurities and reservations as you do. But the system works better for them because the people at the top are more often than not men. So the only way women are going to be able to re-shape the system in a way that works better for women is to put up with the obnoxious bullshit politics for a while. 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.

zorpner 13y ago
> So the only way women are going to be able to re-shape the system in a way that works better for women is to put up with the obnoxious bullshit politics for a while. 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.
- makomk 13y ago
  I have never met any person who isn't somehow perpetuting the patriarchy, nor seen evidence any they exist - not even amongst radical feminists.
- carriemelissa 13y ago
  BAM! Yes!
carriemelissa 13y ago
"So the only way women are going to be able to re-shape the system in a way that works better for women is to put up with the obnoxious bullshit politics for a while." - I'm sorry... WHAT? No. That's the whole point of this article. The bullshit is bullshit. Let's cut it out.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  Sometimes the only way to change the system is from the inside because your influence on the system is directly proportional to how seriously the system's leaders and participants take you. 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.

redthrowaway 13y ago

This is as true for men as it is for women. We face different societal pressures, but those pressures do exist and it is impossible to fulfill all of the expectations placed upon us by society/ourselves. 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.

ekanes 13y ago

Totally valid points, but the post is about work-life balance, and not really anything to do with women in tech. While women absolutely do have it harder in tech, and different work-life balance challenges, making it an Open Letter! is a bit dramatic. Make the balance choices that are right for you, no matter if you're a man or woman.

wavesounds 13y ago

This is the best post I've read on HN in 2013. 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.

arasmussen 13y ago
You're joking right? Is this sarcasm? Work life balance? A bum deal? We get paid a six figure salary on top of getting fed breakfast, lunch, and dinner on a daily basis to work lazily for realistically 6-7 hours a day and then head home with more hours of free time per day than our friends in other industries (finance, medicine, law, you name it) have who are making half a tech salary or working twice the hours. 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.
- wavesounds 13y ago
  Don't know where your working. To get ahead a most companies I know of, working 60 hour weeks is a given. Thats why they provide free food and stuff, so you can spend as much time as possible working.
  - aianus 13y ago
    Why do you need to get ahead when the entry-level salary is already more than one can realistically spend improving their happiness?
    - pm90 13y ago
      Why does Apple need to charge price stuff so high when the profits it makes is already more than what it can realistically spend on improving its investors happiness?
      - aianus 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

> What will get you to the top and still have you loving life? Taking leaps of faith, laughing at the naysayers, blowing off people who ignore you, caring about people and organizations that make you healthier and that care about the core of you rather than what you can simply do for them, celebrating your family and friends and all the love that you can create together. 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.

arasmussen 13y ago

This is a terrible argument. 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.

carriemelissa 13y ago
Do you know who the author is? And, also, what is your definition of "success"?
- arasmussen 13y ago
  She's a woman in tech in her twenties. 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.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    Doesn't it come down to how you define success?
    - girvo 13y ago
      Someone would say that was pretty much the articles point. Which a lot of people seem to be missing in their haste to defend "Lean In"?

PavlovsCat 13y ago

"Leaning in", where have I read that before... ah, got it: > 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-lean-in-to-puke-you-organize-for-change/ http://scientopia.org/blogs/thusspakezuska/2013/09/13/you-le...

m1117 13y ago

I want to criticize Lean In, but kinda something feels guilty inside me cuz I'm a man... That's why I wanted to hear some critics from females side. But how do we know that it's not a fake post and not written by 35 years old male as a joke?

lowglow 13y ago
It's written by a woman. No joke here.
johnbm 13y ago
Congratulations, you've been convinced to loathe yourself because of other people's insecurities.
theorique 13y ago
What did you dislike about it, or think needs to be criticized? We won't judge you because you're a man - this is the internet! It's a meritocracy, and your critical opinions will stand or fall on their own value alone.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

enraged_camel 13y ago
>>Just do your job like any other gender and absolutely nobody will give two cents about what shape is in your pants. Except people do care about gender. Studies have conclusively established that men and women earn drastically different amounts of money even if they do the same jobs. Men are also much more likely to be picked for promotions over women even if their performance is worse. Honestly your comment is extremely ignorant and you would do well to go and educate yourself.
MartinCron 13y ago
People keep bringing it up because some people haven't yet figured out that helping women isn't at all about hurting men. You can help with that. Seriously.

birken 13y ago

I don't think SS is saying this is the only way to be happy in her book. I think she is saying that if you are a woman and you want to be successful in the business world, here are a bunch of stories and anecdotes talking about life is more difficult for you, but you can persevere if you work really hard. I don't think she says the system is fair, and I also don't remember SS saying choosing other lifestyles is wrong. 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).

MartinCron 13y ago
Yeah, she goes really really far out of her way to say that her approach isn't the only one.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

Why exactly I don't see these many discussion about women in construction industry as I see about women in IT? Why exactly I don't see any discussion about courts giving children to their fathers in 50% of 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. 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?

jwoah12 13y ago
> Why exactly I don't see these many discussion about women in construction industry as I see about women in IT? Because you're reading a forum called Hacker News.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  BS. Because the feminists are interested only in equality in highly paid jobs for women.
  - asdasf 13y ago
    Construction jobs are highly paid.
    - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
      BS again. I take my 60-100 use/hr vs. construction 20-30usd/hr any second. And then women don't really get dirty, dangerous jobs. They want only equality in safe, clean nice offices.
      - asdasf 13y ago
        You go right ahead and keep on pretending you make $200k/year then, I'm sure if you pretend hard enough it will suddenly become relevant.

ericabiz 13y ago

I'm having a difficult time reconciling this article to what I actually read when I read Lean In...to the point where I don't think the author of this article has actually read the book. 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.

13y ago

EGreg 13y ago

Controversy sells. Calling out someone famous gets you noticed. Done.

girvo 13y ago

Good advice regardless of who you are: chill out, and work towards actual happiness. Regardless of what that means for you, although id usually wager that playing others bullshit games probably isn't going to be it. At least is usually isn't for me!

cafard 13y ago

As a male in late middle age, I'm not the target audience of either the book or the letter. I would agree with the writer that Lean In is of very limited applicability. I would qualify this by saying that "self-esteem, peace, confidence to take leaps of faith, and well-rounded happiness" are not necessarily best sought directly.