Why is no one talking about 'lean In'?

Interesting article here: medium.com/gender-justice-feminism/49b1e1017963

Discusses the media coverage of Lean In & criticises the tendency to polarize issues by framing them as opposing views, rather than potentially complementary approaches, both of which are necessary. Would be interested to hear what others on the thread make of it.

Hmm. Sounds charming! I see your point...

I think Mayer is horrid because she lives in a privileged, white, first-world bubble. She said she didn't understand the "need" for feminism and doesn't identify with the movement at all. So the women in Afghanistan don't need feminism? What about the women in Yemen?
Her own country needs feminism! They don't even have laws for maternity leave or any system in place that makes childcare affordable for working women who aren't billionaires.
She is also a hypocrite. When she had a baby she got a nursery arranged right next to her office. The same year she announced that employees of Yahoo would no longer be able to work from home for any amount of time. Majority of the employees who benefitted from working home were women with children who weren't powerful enough to have a nursery arranged right next to their plush offices.

Her attitude is disgusting. She has also insisted that she achieved what she did because of her own brilliance and she had nothing to thank the feminists for. Will someone please tell her that had it not been for the feminist movement which made it OK for women to have a life and a voice, we would all be sat in a kitchen baking pies or on a table giving birth?

Autumn Okay, I can see that any kind of book about women's ambitions, careers, achievements etc is going to clash with that, so I guess Lean In is an extreme example in that case.

I have fundamental disagreements with the idea that women should always be communal - I wondered if you were saying that, but sounds like you're saying anyone agentic = bad, everyone should be communal? If that's the case, we still have a clash of axioms, so the only thing I can say productively is that I disagree.

Peace - why do you think Mayer is horrid?

I would think her a lot more lovely if she did not work for a company that chooses to be impotent in the face of misognistic, rapey content on a daily basis.

I absolutely loved that book. Really, really enjoyed it.

Sheryl Sandberg is lovely (she is the COO of Facebook, don't confuse her with the horrid CEO of Yahoo).

I think for me it's more self-promotion of everyone, not just women. I find it part of the patriarchial discourse. Talk about competition, getting ahead, achievement, rising to the top, etc.

(Or anyone self-promoting, if you didn't mean exclusively women.)

What is it that feels wrong to you about women doing stuff that's self-promotion, Autumn?

Sorry, I have not read the book. Probably should.

Just wanted to say that I find the whole concept of "career" a bit cringey and vaguely potentially sexist. Why not just "work"? "Work" to me has more positive connotations. It means a productive activity that contributes to something beyond the worker. "Career" is a bit too much about self-promotion. Why is most of talk about women in the workplace focused on careers - i.e. self-promotion - as opposed to the simple right to work and contribute to society in different ways, whether you are a top manager/rocket scientist or not?

Whilst it's obviously written from an US perspective as that's where the author is from, she did have someone researching international material (mentioned in the thanks at the back) and I think much of the points she makes certainly apply to UK working culture as I've experienced it.

I also don't think Sandberg is advocating "act like a man" - the chapter on success & likeability points out in depth how acting "like a man" actually tends to get women penalised. I found the advice on how to stand up for yourself without being penalised for not being "nice" tremendously helpful, and I don't think that applies to only career women, or only women who work in offices, or only rich white Americans.

^ What rain said. There is a tendency to posit the feminist solution to anything as "behave as much like a man as possible" and I'm not sure how feminist or how much of a solution that is.

Plus this book and a lot of the related discussion is USian and their working culture is nothing to envy, IMHO, atrocious maternity leave and minimal paid leave. I would be more interested in hearing a Scandinavian version of leaning in.

Also such books seem to focus on a very narrow view of what a "career woman" is - someone who went to university and works in an office.

It didn't read as a dig soupstained, there were a lot of comments along those lines re: Meyer and motherhood, all over the place!

And yes I have mixed SS and MM up - apologies both.

I don't think there is anything wrong at all in women discussing how to have very successful careers (and I don't think guilt needs to come into it at all).

it's more that if we only discuss that strata of women who can have/want that sort of achievement, it actually limits the whole conversation about women/families and work.

As one of those 'career women', I'm not sure I've ever read anything more radical than 'well, if you want to get on, you must outsource all of your childcare from very early days so that you can be limitlessly available to your employer. Then behave as much like the successful men you can see above you.'

i live in hope of a more radical, transformative and fairer solution!

sorry, just reread previous post, sounds like veiled dig at ppl on this thread - not, just too lazy to track down examples...DS asleep on me so trying to type one-handed.

Going back to the book, I actually liked that she quoted lots of studies. Am thinking it should be mandatory reading for male managers.

rain I think you're mixing up Sandberg & Marissa Meyer, CEO of Yahoo. (The one who was hired whilst pregnant, cue lots of offensive bollocks about OOOH SHE DOESN'T KNOW HER PRIORITIES WILL CHANGE WHEN SHE POPS, OOOH HOW DARE SHE, OOOH! That one.)

I am interested by how attempts to discuss Lean In seem so often to be critical of the book for having a focus. I liked it, I think it's a jolly good thing for women to feel they can talk about wanting to be successful in business, wanting a career, without having to feel guilty because not all women do.

ps yes again kickass - re: outsourcing.

I think men need to 'insource' more. That's the only answer. Then everything from career structures to working hours would have to adjust.

This whole idea of work 'long hours and outsource everything domestic' (as if childcare was on a level with getting a cleaner in anyway...) is about at best a two tier society. Those who can outsource and those we outsource to. I think getting more women to top positions on politics, law, media and business IS damn important. But I don't want to see a lot of feminism becoming 'ultra alpha' women talking to other ultra alphas as if the rest of the world didn't exist.

Agree, kickass.

I know the book is targeted at potentially higher flying career people (women, reallly - have any men read this book,? do they read stuff about the importance of being a supportive partner?). People like me in other words. Big career, main earner.

Ok, nothing wrong with that. But I still want to see the book aimed at the female workers who in our current set up, will be the working women looking after my children while I go out and have my successful career. Less educated than me, they certainly earn less. They basically have to lean back so I can lean in, for as long as top careers involve long hours. Unless men pull their weight more in terms of parenting. Can they do this while working the long hours necessary for a top career? or will they have to step out more?

Didn't SS have a nursery set up next to her office, with a full time nanny, so she could see a lot of her daughter while working full time? How many of us can do that? and didn't she ban her employees from working from home - which for many working parents offers the only way to make work/parenting/childcare/school pick ups doable?

Nice one.

"I was really career focused until I saw the top women at work, and thought no way do I want to be like them."

When I looked at careers of the top women at work, I realised there weren't any. at all. And there weren't any at the middle level either. But at my level, it was 50-50.

Yikes, what happens to all the women?
There is a problem here and its that some men actually sabotage women's careers. Some men are sexist and won't recognise women's achievements and contribution. Some won't give good jobs to women.

"There are a few issues here for me. Why women do get held back so much (and there are plenty of women who lean in but still get rejected. Doesn't matter what direction you're leaning if the boss wants an applicant with a penis). Why some jobs get so much more pay than others (nurses etc work hard and lean in, but with much fewer rewards).

yes.

Look for posts by Xenia.

Actually, the more I think about this, the more concerned I am that trying to get into the top jobs just perpetuates the capitalist & patriarchal systems in society.

Why are we trying to buy in to this lifestyle?

I know it will never happen, but if we could hit a 'reset' button, wouldn't we choose a society in which people/families/children and their care were one of the most valued and respected lifestyles? not some big shot high achievers.

I am also very about this idea of outsourcing. Men don't outsource their family obligations - they get a wife to do it or stay a bachelor. If families like mine (dh & I both work) that have a cleaner, it is seen as ME outsourcing, when in fact it is us trying to make the family home function.

Had to stop reading the lean out article half way through.

A book talking about how women can become part of top careers just like men is not the same thing as discussing why other people may not want those careers at all. So why focus on women who don't want them? Why not discuss why some people do or don't want high flying careers, and the impact that has on them, their families, and society as a whole?

There are a few issues here for me. Why women do get held back so much (and there are plenty of wome who lean in but still get rejected. Doesn't matter what direction you're leaning if the boss wants an applicant with a penis). Why it is seen as so necessary to be a big success. The impact on families and society of parents working long hours. Why some jobs get so much more pay than others (nurses etc work hard and lean in, but with much fewer rewards).

It is good to discuss equality in reaching the top, but equally good to discuss how to lie a happy fulfilling life without that pressure. After all, we can't all be CEO of a big company. Someone actually has to do the other jobs.

The lean out article was crap! Might order the SS book.

What does lean in actually mean?

I've been meaning to ask for ages

Career success that is! Not necessarily a happy life.

I've been tempted to read it - and have been urged to take more on at work (am PT and definitely "lean out"- but for me the issue is whether /
how two partners in or near London with small DC and no family support can have full-on careers. Most jobs with prospects seem to involve long hours and the current circumstances, job insecurity and so on, make it hard.

Realistically, unless you can afford and want to use long-hours childcare, one or both partners has to work fewer hours, which impacts on prospects.

It seems to me that long hours equals success.