Sheryl Sandberg, Feminist Icon
Posted on February 22nd, 2013 in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »
The TImes has a fascinating piece about Sheryl Sandberg’s new book—brace yourself for a publicity onslaught—and Sandberg’s attempt to start a national women’s movement, based on collective consciousness-raising, that Sandberg is calling “Lean-In.”
When her book is published on March 11, accompanied by a carefully orchestrated media campaign, she hopes to create her own version of the consciousness-raising groups of yore: “Lean In Circles,” as she calls them, in which women can share experiences and follow a Sandberg-crafted curriculum for career success. (First assignment: a video on how to command more authority at work by changing how they speak and even sit.)
But as the Times points out, Sandberg has some potential drawbacks as a feminist icon, in that she’s really never known hardship and she’s incredibly privileged and absurdly rich. She’s become a paper billionaire by working at jobs that, difficult though they may be, don’t require her to work longer hours than millions of American women who get paid minimum wage for their efforts and don’t have a 9, 000-square-foot house.
But Sandberg does not lack for confidence:
“I always thought I would run a social movement,” Ms. Sandberg, 43, said in an interview for “Makers,” a new documentary on feminist history.
All this sets off alarm bells to me. It is hard to imagine “a leader of a social movement,” whether male or female, whose life story has absolutely no relevance to the people he or she is supposed to be leading. Sandberg is surely enormously talented and ambitious—I’m told by someone who used to work closely with her that she was thinking about running for governor of California, but has decided to go straight for the presidency—and I wouldn’t underestimate her. But what gives her such confidence that she knows what is best for women? If it’s not based in empathy and shared struggle, isn’t it just…arrogance?
But advisors and colleagues say Sandberg has no such qualms.
“She is using all of her social capital on this,” said Rachel Sklar, founder of a networking list for women in technology, who is on the Lean In launch committee.
(Blogger: There is something so deeply appalling about this sentence—as if using “all your social capital” really indicates anything meaningful.)
Asked how Ms. Sandberg would balance her demanding job with the creation of a new movement, a member of the team offered a tentative answer: she plans to use her vacation days.
Sandberg has convinced a number of major corporations to sign on to the Lean In manifesto, which is weird, and convinced Jill Abramson, the editor of the New York Times, to write an essay in support of Lean In, which in my old school way of thinking is unprofessional of Abramson.
So all this will get some attention. Maybe some good will come out of the ensuing debate. Or maybe Sandberg will just succeed in convincing people to sign on to her agenda, which is, ultimately, the accumulation of her own power and wealth.
7 Responses
2/22/2013 10:37 am
“I always thought I would run a social movement” — Gandhi
“I always thought I would run a social movement” — ML King
“I always thought I would run a social movement” — Florence Nightingale
“I always thought I would run a social movement” - William Lloyd Garrison
“I always thought I would run a social movement” - WEB DuBois
— and many more.
2/22/2013 1:35 pm
“I always thought I would run a social movement” — Gandhi
“I always thought I would run a social movement” — ML King
“I always thought I would run a social movement” — Florence Nightingale
“I always thought I would run a social movement” - William Lloyd Garrison
“I always thought I would run a social movement” - WEB DuBois
– and many more.
2/22/2013 3:59 pm
“I always thought I would run a social movement.” -a thousand unemployed stoners who still live with their parents.
“I always thought I would run a social movement.” -Sarah Palin
“I always thought I would run a social movement.” -Justin Beiber
2/22/2013 7:34 pm
But as the Times points out, Sandberg has some potential drawbacks as a feminist icon, in that she’s really never known hardship and she’s incredibly privileged and absurdly rich.
Her father is a physician, her mother a schoolteacher. There is an advantage in that but referring to an upbringing in the professional-managerial bourgeoisie as ‘incredibly privileged’ is de trop. (Reportedly, she attended a public high school, open to any mope).
Most people born after a certain date have never known ‘hardship’ unless you use the term loosely. A large fraction of the population has lived in very uncertain and insecure circumstances for years at a time, but even that is not universal and perhaps not modal. (Remember also that we live in a country where the poor are disproportionately fat).
I will wager her working hours are somewhat longer than normal.
There is a difficulty in all this, and that is that she identifies social relations in the workplace as the primary problem women face, and the prism through which she understands that is of someone in a professional-managerial post; her response seems to be some sort of gitchy-goo group therapy. It is not just that most women (> 85%) do not have such work and never will, it is that it is difficult to see that the problems of women qua women are economic in character. The economic problems women have are a function of their employment skills, family responsibilities, and the vicissitudes of life, not their sex. Men have the same bloody problems.
If you want to identify the principal problem women as women have, you might look at the forty-odd year history during which men and women have failed to adapt well to each other with the regularity that previous generations managed. First you had expressive divorce, then you had routinized bastardy. Even that you cannot refer to as a women’s problem, because women and men are a dyad. She does know something about it from experience, though. She was divorced and then remarried. In the same calendar year.
2/22/2013 7:37 pm
Sandberg has convinced a number of major corporations to sign on to the Lean In manifesto, which is weird, and convinced Jill Abramson, the editor of the New York Times, to write an essay in support of Lean In, which in my old school way of thinking is unprofessional of Abramson.
Horse left the barn around about 1994.
http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Justice-Selling-Clarence-Thomas/dp/0395633184
2/23/2013 7:05 pm
Some may argue that American women fought the wrong way in the 1960s for feminist rights compared to their European counterparts, who lobbied for more paid maternity vacation time, extended leaves of absence to raise children, and more flexibility in balancing work/family life. While American women certainly have the opportunity to be highly successful and financially compensated for their efforts, balancing a work/family lifestyle still remains a struggle for many women.
Unfortunately, it seems Sandberg is bringing nothing new to advance the discussion, especially with a motto like “Lean In.” I agree with Art Deco that the movement seems like a less seductive rallying cry for a nationwide Sex in the City girlfriend brunch.
2/24/2013 12:07 pm
Maureen Dowd devastates her today.
Sandberg has co-opted the vocabulary and romance of a social movement not to sell a cause, but herself. She says she’s using marketing for the purpose of social idealism. But she’s actually using social idealism for the purpose of marketing.