“Lean In”
Dear Sheryl Sandberg,
After viewing your TED Talks video titled Why we have too few women leaders, I found you made a multitude of biased personal statements, but do not account for the general public. Statistically and logistically speaking your arguments are unreliable, and here are three reasons why this holds to be true: One your views are biased from a capitalistic world in which only wealthy Caucasian men exist, two you look down upon stay at home mothers, despite that being tiring and stressful especially without the assistance of anyone, and lastly double standards are not, and should not cause women to lack ambition in the workplace, but rather give them the ambition to strive to work harder. I disagree with your stance, on the basis that my first main point of capitalism comes with the condition you are an entitled wealthy caucasian woman that runs a well known company founded by wealthy caucasian men. Your argument leads back to capitalism, and how that key factor runs corporate America. America is a capitalist society, in which is run by the one percent of wealthy caucasian CEOs. Power is what keeps this nation going, with a title comes the responsibility to employ the other ninety nine percent of the population. Going further into how I stand against your novel, let us delve deeper into your concept of “lean in”, and “don’t leave before you leave”. If women do not “lean in” they are defined by you as being unambitious and afraid to take the leap of faith, to“raise up to challenges”. Rather, women who do not “lean in”, may simply be satisfied with where they are in their career, therefore there is no need for them to “lean in”.Women leave before moving up a position to pursue other endeavors they desire, for example starting a family, or a business. Not to mention you state all stay at home moms have it easy portraying their lives to be those of the women on Desperate Housewives, not giving them the credit they deserve as you yourself are a working mother. Further speaking, putting men on a pedestal by discussing how men with ambition are viewed with positivity, whereas ambitious women are viewed with negativity.
Further elaborating, you pointed out that women have difficulties with “personal fulfillment” and “professional successes”. Why must women choose between the two, many women of today are driven hard working mothers, who succeed with both jobs. Most women of today are more likely to desire and strive for both motherhood and a career, and are better prepared to handle both. An example of how your statement is invalid being that women in East Asia Specifically Japan are career driven, but are unhappy, going to the extremes of taking their own life. Despite the high suicide rates in Japan, similarly in South Korea men and women are also career oriented, and face the same face the same spike in mortality rate that Japan faces. These statistics of suicide go to show that having simply a career does not fulfill one’s “life long dream”. Men and women are constantly working, and working overtime with the hope of moving up positions, this, in turn delays the process of starting a family, often put off in order to focus on their careers. In response, many Koreans are seeking careers in the entertainment industry which restricts them of their freedom to date, as it gives them a negative image, therefore delaying any plans of starting a relationship and starting a family.
In short Mrs. Sandberg your idea and concept on why women need to “lean in” and should not “leave before you leave” is inaccurate. Why must this theory be frowned upon? This proposition is more frequented by women than men being that they are faced with certain adversities that are not considered appropriate to be displayed to the public. Thus forcing them of living with an illusion of a facade, athletes are said to have a game face. The more widely known saying of “poker face” is synonymous with poker players, but are yet not accused of living with “imposter syndrome.”
There is not much more I can say Mrs. Sandberg, except the fact that you are blinded by a capitalistic ego that revolves around money, and the economy, which we live in a society where people struggle on a daily basis to make ends meet in order to feed, clothe and support their family. Everyday people are not COOs or CEOs, they are everyday average blue or white collar workers who only look to get by, doing what they can in order to survive. Furthermore your perspective and bias are flawed in many ways, for instance as a woman leader, the COO for Facebook, you seem to be mentioning for the oppression women face, and negative factors whilst disregarding the positives. All the while discussing how men do not face the same issues, as women are faced with adverse scrutiny women; men are given praise for, whatever the topic may pertain to. I will end with this, you have made interesting remarks, they are interesting in that they have completely undermined women and their abilities, all the while praised men in the process. Men are given an applause through enablers like yourself, who enable yourself to criticize and oppress women blaming us for not living up to your COO standards, giving men high acclaim, because you have the stigma women cannot hold a title of power, and have a high rank in companies.
Sincerely, Evelyn Tran