Reading Response 10/10

Where to even begin? My first brush with Sheryl Sandberg was a discussion with a friend about the TED talk she gave. My critique of the talk still remains the same in light of the two takes of her book, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. Mainly, her view and advice is definitely one-sided in terms of the individual vs. society or individual vs. institution. She focuses on individual change rather than societal, structural, or institutional changes. Annie of the PHD in Parenting blog points out that Sandberg does acknowledge the structural and institutional challenges and the need to change them along with the double standards in the workforce, but I would argue that this discourse of the woman “having it all” in work, family, and parenting through self-change and fighting to work is still problematic. For one, it applies to a small segment of women (educated, professional jobs, middle to upper class, arguably white, and heterosexual). Second, while I am all for positive motivation and promoting self-esteem for women and girls, her framing of women not putting themselves out there or being insecure and afraid to rise in her career as a problem to overcome is troubling. It can be interpreted that females are inherently insecure, timid, etc. and does not question why women do not act this way (external pressures, socialization throughout life, etc.) or why this is a “good” (and marked as masculine) trait for the workplace, which without a doubt has a masculinized ideal worker in mind.

As Kate Losse points out, it is also troubling that this discourse is promoted much more than other feminist ones. It can be risky that this type of advice (which is not completely new) starts acting as the stop gap for the gender and racial/ ethnic inequalities of the workplace and that structural and institutional change is neglected. Losse points out “lean in” circles and Sandberg’s book as a manual is already advocated in corporations and the book’s corporate partners like American Express, Amazon, and Bain. The not too subtle ties of Sandberg’s book and the feminism movement framework with corporations and Facebook are also of interest. I appreciate that Losse points this out and poses the question: “does the corporation that Sandberg leads and in which she is invested have an interest in limiting feminism in this way?” (March 26, 2012). Losse speculate that these ties between Facebook and Sandberg is a way to neutralize critiques of companies like Facebook of having homogenous workforces and people in positions of power as well as promote Facebook as the face of cutting edge new technology in social movements and revolutions. It reminded me of when H&M, the fast fashion giant who is not exactly known for sustainable environmental and social practices, published a sustainability report in 2012. On one hand, it is great that corporations are more interested in social changes and movements and arguably, this might be the only way to get information across and spur change in today’s society and culture. However, I can’t help but suspect the motivation and the extent of change…

***

Other than the gross sexism and misogyny reported in Tasneem Raja’s article (I had a slimmer of hope in humanity when she reported that no one laughed at Van Horn’s fraternity’s recruiting strategy to “‘attract the hottest girls’” joke), the revamping or even re-branding of fields and start ups in technology from geeks to frat boys/ bros is an interesting take. It reminds me that there is indeed a hierarchy of masculinities (and femininities and so on) and asks the question of why a geeky masculinity/ stereotype (which might not be less sexist or misogynist) needed to be replaced with a literal dick-swagging frat boy masculinity/ stereotype that inherently has sexist, misogynist, and heterosexual properties. Is it to attract other men to these fields? A reaction to concerns about the lack of women in these fields? A common remedy for the specter of homosexuality in homosocial settings? I’m curious.