
Sheryl Sandberg & Male-Dominated Silicon Valley - ssclafani
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/07/11/110711fa_fact_auletta
======
sp332
_At her Phi Beta Kappa induction, there were separate ceremonies for men and
women. At hers, a woman gave a speech called “Feeling Like a Fraud.” During
the talk, Sandberg looked around the room and saw people nodding. “I thought
it was the best speech I’d ever heard,” she recalls. “I felt like that my
whole life.” At every stage of her time in school, Sandberg thought, I really
fooled them. There was “zero chance,” she concluded, that the men in the other
room felt the same._

This is actually very common among successful people. It's called "Impostor
Syndrome" and I don't think it affects women more than men.
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Impostor_Synd...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Impostor_Syndrome)
(The opposite is the Dunning-Kruger effect,
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dunning%E2%80...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
)

 _Sandberg says she eventually realized that women, unlike men, encountered
tradeoffs between success and likability._

I'm not sure if it's exactly the same, but a study posted to HN just yesterday
proves that this affects men as well.
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2724212>

Also, I don't understand this part: _Sandberg asked Goler to oversee human
resources at Facebook. Goler wavered, saying that she didn’t think she was
qualified. “No man would ever turn down more responsibility,” Sandberg
admonished her. Goler then said yes._

There are a ton of engineers who don't want to be in management, and have
turned down offers of "more responsibility". How could Sandberg not know that,
having worked at Google and Facebook?

~~~
nbm
Regarding "No man would ever turn down more responsibility": The conversations
reported in stories like this lack the full content and context of the
situation. Just because you read sentence A and can think of counter-examples,
doesn't mean that the person that reportedly said A doesn't know about the
counter-examples.

Since Goler apparently was concerned more about qualification than about
"being in management", it makes sense in the context of reports that women
underrate themselves to suggest being more assertive.

Also, I've rarely found good engineers who would turn down "more
responsibility". They just want it in the areas they want it in (say, a
particular area of the code base, standards, product direction), not in areas
that others want them to ("management").

------
rokhayakebe
I am growing tired of this one item.

Women did not (and still mostly do not) want anything to do with computers.
Now x years later they want to reap the same benefits as the nerdy dorky white
kid who spent all his youth in front of a monitor.

No sympathy here.

~~~
danilocampos
Quite so! Women, all acting as a single unified force, have never once done
anything with a computer ever.

And all Hispanics are lazy.

And all Irish people drink.

Etc.

The trouble with generalizations is that they stop being useful when you're
dealing with individual human beings. It's your business if you want to say
absurdly wrong-headed, misogynist things but at least sign your real name to
them, huh?

edit: Ah, the good ol' HN No Girls Allowed Brigade. Good luck, travelers.

~~~
rokhayakebe
Danilo, technically speaking I am the same camp as the women. In fact I think
they are more women in tech holding executive positions than African-
Americans, let alone African (which I am). I did not grow up playing with a
Commodore 64, all the way up to my first year in university in Dakar (capital
of Senegal) I had never heard anyone I knew wanting to become a software
engineer. So today I am not going to write or support articles about how we do
not have enough black men on the board of leading tech companies.

~~~
ovi256
Well, you see, this is where you are wrong. Playing victim is a mechanism that
has certainly won its place in today's struggle for power in the Western
civilization. Guaranteed results! Even better when you have real disadvantage
on your side. Some people have made it into careers, entire new markets, and
stable revenue streams. White guilt is a studied sociological phenomena for a
reason, after all.

If you refuse to use it, I salute you.

------
Rariel
It's a little unnerving to see a woman who was propped up and sponsored by men
and given every advantage (yes, after working hard--like many others) say
there is no glass ceiling. How would she know when she got to ride in the
special elevator to the top?

It's easy to say there's nothing wrong when you've never encountered the
problems that most other women have.

~~~
BasDirks
From what I have read here on HN and elsewhere she's just very, very good. "
_Propped up and sponsored by men_ "? Could you elaborate? You're seriously
downplaying Sheryl's skills and ethics. And " _the problems that most other
women have_ "? Don't let my mother hear that BS, she'd say: " _who the hell is
most other women_ "?

The glass ceiling metaphor is too abstract because it makes an underhanded
claim to universality. "A glass ceiling for women in tech" is too vague and
doesn't advance the discussion.

~~~
Rariel
Sure I can elaborate on my "[propping] up and sponsored by men" comment
although you questioning that makes me feel like you didn't read the article.
That was a consistent theme--people asserting that her attitude about women in
business/tech/being under represented was a result of her having a lot of
advantages (via men propping her up and sponsoring her) that most women don't
have. And I don't know your mother but what I said is hardly BS. I'm sure both
she and you know who I mean by "most women" I mean women who make up the vast
majority of women in our western society. Women who have to choose between
giving their all to their career and having children because unlike Sandberg
they don't have nannies or a 50/50 relationship where they can expect their
husband to co-parent. Women who aren't mentored by the best of the best and
don't have parents who are PhD (dropouts) and Ophthalmologists. I'm not
discounting anything she's done--she's remarkable and a brilliant person. But
for her to act like other women aren't doing what she's doing because they
aren't assertive enough or that the problem lies within their reaction to
sexism--give me a break. In the article somebody counters her points on that
by saying that Sandberg acts as if this is a meritocracy when it's not--that's
spot on.

As for glass ceiling metaphor, why don't you ask Sandberg what she's referring
to. I was just referencing what she said "She opposes all forms of affirmative
action for women. “If you don’t believe there is a glass ceiling, there is no
need,” she told me."

Oh and as for specifics about being propped up and sponsored by men I'd point
to things like this "In January of 1991, Summers became the chief economist at
the World Bank, and that spring he recruited Sandberg as a research
assistant." I don't care how smart or good you are, without certain
connections you're not going to get a research associateship at the world
bank.

~~~
paganel
> "In January of 1991, Summers became the chief economist at the World Bank,
> and that spring he recruited Sandberg as a research assistant." I don't care
> how smart or good you are, without certain connections you're not going to
> get a research associateship at the world bank.

TIL The current FB COO worked as a research assistant at the World Bank.

Sometimes I want to blame my parents for being just a pair of middle-aged
farmers in an Eastern-European country, when they could have had guys like
Summers as their friend and a mansion in Hamptons if they had worked hard
enough.</sarcasm>

~~~
stayjin
I guess it depends in how you measure those things. A quote I like is: "What
one faces in his/her life is destiny. How he/she faces it is personal choice".
We are what we make ourselves into. With our last breath we stop fighting for
our goals. She is not more or less successful than one fighting to make her
monthly wage. She was in a different playground, that's all. If she fought
well to get where she is, good for her. If not, well there is not much there
for a hacker to admire, is there?

~~~
ovi256
His point is that even if you face your destiny in the best possible way (to
put it in your terms), if your destiny does not include Harvard professors
that move to the World Bank, there won't be any articles in the New Yorker
about you.

------
geebee
I thought it was an interesting article, but by focusing so heavily on how the
career ladder works, I think it missed the point. This article is more about
why there are so few female Eric Schmidt's than why there are so few female
Mark Zuckerberg's.

And as far as I can tell, the google guys weren't alpha male types charging
forward at every stage of the process - they had a lot of self-doubt as well.
I'm sure there were mentors, but Sheryl Sandberg is an economics major who was
"mentored" by Larry Summers (an impressive guy, to be sure, but this sounds
like the career path of someone who earned n impressive severance package
after the financial meltdown, not someone who came out of nowhere in the tech
world).

I'm not saying that the career ladder described in this article doesn't exist
in silicon valley - clearly it does, but probably to a lesser extent than in
other industries. In short, this article probably explains more about other
industries than silicon valley itself.

------
NY_Entrepreneur
Part I

It's simple: The article is promoting a grand disaster. It's still more
simple: The article has a huge logical gap.

Sandberg does a lot of 'reaching out' to women; she does so much of this that
the article can reasonably pose the question:

"Can Sheryl Sandberg upend Silicon Valley’s male-dominated culture?"

In particular, as in Sandberg's buffet dinners with lots of women, her
commencement speech at Barnard College, her TED talk, she's trying to talk to
many women or 'most' women about how to 'do better'.

Then, that's the gap, at least in the article, and maybe also in what she is
doing: Right away we can see that her example and thinking as in the article
(again, I'm talking about the article here and not necessarily her) just
cannot even hope to work for more than 1% of women. For the other 99+%, her
example and advice, as in the article, is just somewhat dangerous fantasy
nonsense.

For an analogy, not perfect but close enough, the claim is, play as well as
Dirk Nowitzki and you, too, can win an NBA championship. Nope: No matter how
many people play as well as Dirk Nowitzki, in a given year (on separate teams)
at most one will win an NBA championship. So, the fantasy of the article is
nonsense.

To move this simple analogy closer to the real situation, only a very tiny
fraction of people can have careers at or near the top of hot, leading, very
valuable businesses.

Or, no matter what the heck the advice, just CANNOT put more than 1% of the
people in the top 1% of the positions. EVER. Again, for the logical gap, the
article is suggesting, entertaining its readers, with the fantasy that all
women who will "Be like Sheryl" can also be in the top 1% of business jobs.
Nope. So, the fantasy of the article is nonsense.

Next, there is a striking conflict right at the surface: She has a nanny at
home and a staff at work. So, what about THOSE women, that is, the nanny, no
doubt a woman, and the staff, likely well over 50% women? That is, what about
their 'work-life balance'? For the children of the nanny, does the nanny have
a nanny? For the staff, does each staff member have a staff? Since the answers
are likely no, the fantasy of the article is nonsense.

So, net, how many women are setting aside their own 'work-life balance' so
that Ms. Sandberg can be such a 'successful woman'?

Then at work, when 'crunch time' comes and she needs to be home with her two
children, what does she do? Sure: First, she has a staff. Second, she can
delegate. Third, she can rush home and spend 'quality time' with her children
while the nanny does the washing, cleaning, cooking, etc. Again, the fantasy
of the article is nonsense, fundamentally, for all but a tiny fraction of
women.

Next, for 'career advice' for women, the article and her example are nonsense.
Here is the blunt, bold, bottom line fact of life about careers in the US now
and for some decades: Making your career direction trying to be near the top
of a large corporation is a fool's errand. First, unless one gets lucky with
stock, such as Ms. Sandberg did at Google, there's actually not much money,
from just salary, after taxes, after unreimbursed business expenses, e.g., the
clothes, car, nanny, house, buffets, in being in such a position. E.g., her
car will be expensive because as soon as it needs maintenance she won't sit
there for a few hours in a muffler shop, brake shop, tune-up shop, tire shop,
oil change place, etc. and, instead, will just trade in the thing for a new
one. Second, such jobs tend not to last very long.

In particular, the article is swooning over the situation that Ms. Sandberg
can be a CEO: Sure, just start a lemonade stand and be a CEO. But the article
means that she can be hired as a CEO in some large corporation. Well, maybe.
Then what? She's just a hired CEO, and that's NOT a very good job because (1)
have to spend most of the effort trying to be successful while pleasing both
the SEC and Wall Street (keeping down class action stockholder suits, etc.)
and (2) actually do not have much real control over the future of the
business. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs (after his RETURN to Apple which was nearly
dead), Larry Ellison, Fred Smith have control; John Akers, Lou Gerstner,
Jeffery Immelt, Carly Florina, didn't or don't. Such jobs tend not to last
very long.

The article shows another serious problem: Ms. Sandberg flatly doesn't know
what the heck she wants. What she's done is to work hard, be great at
memorization, dot i's, cross t's, each day have all the items on her to-do
list checked off, do well going without sleep, save time on hair, makeup,
exercise, and clothes, all for the goal of getting 'security' in some sense
from getting praise, acceptance, and approval from a herd of women and the
public from being an 'accomplished woman'.

That's her life's goal, her (P. Tillich) 'ultimate concern' -- 'security' in
some sense from getting praise, acceptance, and approval from a herd of women
and the public from being an 'accomplished woman'.

She's making two huge mistakes: (1) The point of work is to make money, bring
the money home, deposit it in the family checkbook, pay the bills, and get
some good financial security for the family. Period. That's IT. Asking for
more from work is a fool's errand pursued only by fools. (2) The good things
in life are what pursue once have done well enough on financial security.
Mostly these good things are the home and family and things close to them.
These good things are mostly NOT distant things such as praise, acceptance,
and approval from a herd of women and the public.

If I were her husband, then I would conclude that she was a disaster as a
wife, mother, and person because she is much more interested in praise,
acceptance, and approval from New York City, Boston, etc. than from her own
husband and children. Bummer. Super bummer. Super confused, lost, brain-dead
bummer.

I've seen such things far too often before: Some of these women are totally
beyond belief. In their teens and twenties, they can work harder and go with
less sleep than any man could ever hope to approach. They have fantastic rote
memories. Their abilities at detail work of dotting i's and crossing t's is
astounding, bested only by computers. They can zip through humanities
subjects, especially novels, with blinding speed and get A+ on a corresponding
test with discussion questions. Their social skills can be somewhat mechanical
and analytical (not like 'Miss Congeniality') but far, far better than any man
could every hope to understand. There are usually close associations with
anxiety, perfectionism, and even obsessive-compulsive disorder. Finally, the
thinking is usually quite distant from reality; e.g., they don't see that they
are neglecting what is important, their home, for nonsense on the other side
of the country. That is, they don't have good life goals and work hard for
them; instead they have compulsions, that is, things they do to near
exhaustion without knowing why.

Finally, they are not willing to get their happiness from their home and their
security from joining with their husband to "take on the world together" and,
instead, want to be full of anxiety from feeling persecuted by men, thus, want
to compete with men and beat men 'in their own game', etc. Brain-dead.

For all their PBK, etc. accomplishments, they actually are not 'smart' but
dumb. I've seen far too many.

~~~
NY_Entrepreneur
Part II

Here's some actual good career advice for women: For the big corporations,
essentially f'get about those. Instead, nearly all of the US economy is on
Main Street. A big advantage here is a geographical barrier to entry: Main
Street in Peoria does not compete with Main Street in Paducah.

So, what businesses on Main Street? A good one is to help your husband in such
a business. If he drives a taxi, then you can handle the phone calls. If he
runs a restaurant, then let him have the back of the house and you handle the
front of the house. If he is a lawyer, then you can be the office manager
('COO'). If he is farming 2000 acres, then you can handle the books. If he
owns 10 fast food shops, gas stations, convenience stores, pizza shops, etc.,
then you can help with personnel, staff scheduling, purchasing, leasing, the
books, etc.

Else, you can be a CPA, tax lawyer, run a photocopying shop with office
supplies, etc. Or there are the two standards -- nursing and K-12 teaching.

These career directions are much more stable than being at the top of a large
corporation. Typically you get to put down 'roots' in a community and stay
there and not move across the country every few years. Since you and/or your
husband own the business, you can't be fired. Since the business meets a
solid, continuing need in the economy and is not some strange flash in the
pan, your job is stable. Since you have many customers broadly in the economy,
you cannot be hurt by just one or a few customers going under and, generally,
will do okay unless the whole economy is in the tank. If you are successful,
say, grow to 10 McDonald's, then you can do quite well financially, typically
better than a large corporation COO. Often you get to bring your children to
work and also get them a start in the 'family business'. Such Main Street
approaches totally knock the socks off being a big company C-level executive.

Crucial here is for you and your husband to be MARRIED and neither of you
neglecting the marriage for something outside -- fast women, slow horses,
cheap booze, applause from strangers, status, fame, prestige, saving the
whales, oceans, environment, planet, etc.

Finland was a tough little country. They beat the Swedes, the Soviets, and the
Nazis. Now Finland is world class in accomplishing the goals of 'feminism'.
But, now Finland is losing: Finland is dying. Literally. The Fins are well on
the way to being extinct, just as extinct as the Neanderthals. Why? On
average, each woman in Finland has only 1.5 children. Finland was able to beat
the Swedes, Soviets, and Nazis but is losing to Ms. Sandberg's hero Gloria
Steinem, who has no children at all.

Clearly this stuff of woman emphasizing something other than home and family
encounters some fundamental 'Darwinian' problems and can't last.

Ms. Sandberg would have women be weak, sick, or dead limbs in the tree: Even
if Ms. Sandberg's two children are strong limbs, there are several woman among
Ms. Sandberg's nanny and staff who will have a tough time having strong limbs.

So, at present, a large fraction of women of Western European descent are far
too eager to strive to crash through glass ceilings and neglect home and
family and, thus, are rapidly removing their genes from the gene pool.

We are currently in the period of most rapid change in the gene pool of the
last maybe 20,000 years.

Why? Clearly in the past women were strong limbs on the tree whether they
really 'wanted' to be or not. Now women have 'options'. In a very few more
generations, what will be left are nearly only women who very much want
nothing to do with any such 'options'. Whatever changes in the gene pool will
be required will have to happen or the whole population of at least Western
European descent will, along with Finland, go extinct. Period.

