Post: #1

Sheryl Sandberg's feminist project fails to get off the ground... because the average working woman can't relate to the $500m Facebook COO
link

This is rich. This woman has the support of the media establishment, complete with backing from big corporations... and the project's a miserable failure. Turns out even American women don't care to listen to some careerist woman with enough millions to hire teams of nannies and butlers, so that she can 'have it all.'

Quote:But despite a profile in Time Magazine and a party at the home of New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, the project does not seem to have got off the ground.

Even the prospect of a 40 page supplement in April’s edition of Cosmopolitan magazine does not seem to have persuaded many women to sign up.

Neither has corporate sponsorship from the likes of American Express, Sony, Google and Johnson & Johnson, according to a report.

The New York Times claimed that the reason for the failure could be ‘awkwardness’ over Sandberg’s enormous privilege - which makes it impossible for her to understand the plight of the average working woman...

She and husband David Goldberg, who runs tech startup SurveyMonkey, are also in the enviable position of having an army of household help when dealing with their two children all gets a bit too much.

Now however it appears that Lean in Circles have not even made an impact on the web - a Google search only turns up six results before the search engine starts listing pages to do with rhythmic gymnastics.

The reason appears to be that women are not interested in taking advice from a woman who is so privileged she has use of the Facebook private jet.

Post: #2

Here is why it failed:

1). Most women want to do some work. Just like most men want to raise kids. But most women do not want the primary focus of life to be work, just like most men don't want their primary focus to be childcare. This is biological and anyone trying to fight that faces an uphill battle.

2). People are starting to see the wizard behind the curtain. "Work" for women means cheaper labor for the one percent at the top (since they keep expanding the labor pool) and twice the consumers for their crappy, useless products. Knock Occupy Wall St. if you will, but it did put the idea into people's heads that we're pawns of the top one percent. That means men and women.

3). The project's focus was boring and ill-conceived: "Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead." WTF?

Let's break down the ideas of the marketing genius who came up with that one. "Work" sounds like something we want to shirk not, dive into. Wrong word! The word "success" would have been better. Words have symbolic as well as intrinsic value. Use 'em wisely. Then there is the phrase "the will to lead." That can be taken in two ways: implying that women a bunch of wimps who have previously not led, or trying to get them to man up like General MacArthur. Insulting your prime demographic is not the way to sell a book or run a campaign. Nor is making them into little generals.

And beyond that, there is the obvious, which the linked article already went over.

Post: #3

You've been on fire past couple days 'Arrows! I've altered your rep point description to account for this. I hope you begin the 'it's sexist' book too, think you've got a partner in crime in Wald.

Regarding the O.P. I am sick to the back teeth of the word 'privilege'. It seems to be an American buzzword more than a UK one. We don't get it here too often at all. It's probably similar to our " threatening community cohesion" buzzphrase which basically just means: "Something that will anger Islam".

Post: #4

(02-24-2013 03:50 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Here is why it failed:

1). Most women want to do some work.

If by "some work" you mean have to prestige, pay and drama of a high powered job, without actually doing the work and making the sacrifices, you are correct sir.

Post: #5

There was a New York Times article on her as well, in which she was quoted as saying something like, "I've always envisioned myself as the leader of a social movement." Her level of delusional entitlement was pretty breathtaking (and nauseating) to behold.

This entire project seems totally ill-conceived. She's so out of touch that she doesn't seem to realize she has practically nothing in common with the average American woman besides the fact that she has a vagina.

This is basically the equivalent of Brad Pitt writing a book on game that just tells guys to be confident and women will swoon, but which totally ignores the fact that he is extremely handsome, famous, successful and rich.

Post: #6

(02-24-2013 07:27 PM)scorpion Wrote:  There was a New York Times article on her as well, in which she was quoted as saying something like, "I've always envisioned myself as the leader of a social movement." Her level of delusional entitlement was pretty breathtaking (and nauseating) to behold.

This entire project seems totally ill-conceived. She's so out of touch that she doesn't seem to realize she has practically nothing in common with the average American woman besides the fact that she has a vagina.

This is basically the equivalent of Brad Pitt writing a book on game that just tells guys to be confident and women will swoon, but which totally ignores the fact that he is extremely handsome, famous, successful and rich.

The woman lives in a bubble. On one hand, it's hard to fault her; look at all the sponsorships and promotions she has received - it's not a huge leap to say, "Hey, if the New York Times is behind me, why wouldn't Jane Doe do it too?" She's like a chick who's been surrounded all her life by people paid to tell her she's pretty. And then she gets out of those circumstances, and she is shocked to find people no longer complimenting her.

Post: #7

Quote:In the book, to be released in March, she urges women not to ‘lean back’ when it comes to their lives, but to ‘lean in’ - give it 100% in all areas of their life - so they can ‘have it all’.

It reads: ‘We hold ourselves back in ways both big and small, by lacking self-confidence, by not raising our hands, and by pulling back when we should be leaning in.

‘We internalise the negative messages we get throughout our lives, the messages that say it’s wrong to be outspoken, aggressive, more powerful than men. We lower our own expectations of what we can achieve.’

Post: #8

this projects spokeswoman/founder sheryl sandberg was delusional in thinking this would ammount to anything. sure she had a high level corporate position in a major corporation but is her career success what other women respond to as a leader of such a cause?

she fails to understand that her target demographic (women) care considerably less about her career achivements than how her life story makes them feel

now if she was JK Rowling who had a lifetime movie made about her story, single mom on welfare who transforms herself to being a best selling author and is reported to be worth more than the queen of england, it would be different. but her own life story is hardly inspiring and her statements towards other women come across as condescending to lower status women who cant afford the priviledges she is afforded. so besides this project lacking a charismatic leader it also had a confusing message to bute so it was all but assured failure from its inception.

Post: #9

(02-24-2013 08:16 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:In the book, to be released in March, she urges women not to ‘lean back’ when it comes to their lives, but to ‘lean in’ - give it 100% in all areas of their life - so they can ‘have it all’.

It reads: ‘We hold ourselves back in ways both big and small, by lacking self-confidence, by not raising our hands, and by pulling back when we should be leaning in.

‘We internalise the negative messages we get throughout our lives, the messages that say it’s wrong to be outspoken, aggressive, more powerful than men. We lower our own expectations of what we can achieve.’

A book full of bellicose propaganda? Wonder why no one wants to read it?

Post: #10

Great points I hadn't thought of. So I Googled Sandberg and found out her story. It looks like she was born into privilege, went to Harvard, got rich by working for DC semi-criminals, and met Mark Zuckerberg by chance at a party attended by the toppermost of the toppermost.

This is not an inspirational story. While you say women would take to JK Rowling's story because of how it makes them feel, I'd expand that to all humans. All of us, regardless of sex, love rags-to-riches stories, or stories where the little guy overcomes obstacles to reach the top. This goes back to David and Goliath in the bible.

This is also why people paid to see the story of "Rocky" or "Rudy" but would not pay to see a story of a Kennedy's "triumph." There is very little drama in the latter story and this might have been Sandberg's flaw.

(02-24-2013 08:17 PM)bacon Wrote:  this projects spokeswoman/founder sheryl sandberg was delusional in thinking this would ammount to anything. sure she had a high level corporate position in a major corporation but is her career success what other women respond to as a leader of such a cause?

she fails to understand that her target demographic (women) care considerably less about her career achivements than how her life story makes them feel

now if she was JK Rowling who had a lifetime movie made about her story, single mom on welfare who transforms herself to being a best selling author and is reported to be worth more than the queen of england, it would be different. but her own life story is hardly inspiring and her statements towards other women come across as condescending to lower status women who cant afford the priviledges she is afforded. so besides this project lacking a charismatic leader it also had a confusing message to bute so it was all but assured failure from its inception.

Post: #11

(02-24-2013 08:16 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:In the book, to be released in March, she urges women not to ‘lean back’ when it comes to their lives, but to ‘lean in’ - give it 100% in all areas of their life - so they can ‘have it all’.

It reads: ‘We hold ourselves back in ways both big and small, by lacking self-confidence, by not raising our hands, and by pulling back when we should be leaning in.

‘We internalise the negative messages we get throughout our lives, the messages that say it’s wrong to be outspoken, aggressive, more powerful than men. We lower our own expectations of what we can achieve.’

PMSL, feminists just make me laugh these days. Utterly hilarious, nonsensical posts left, right and center.

Post: #12

Me, barely three days ago:

Quote:'Women are so successful these days...men need to do more to make them become more successful.'

All this talk about 'glass ceilings' has pointed me to a truth that's become evident not only in the workforce, but in the education system as well; while many men will fail and scrape out middling existences, some will also become successes because they put in the work, but it seems that women can only be successful if men make it easier for them to be successful, or if they hitch their wagon to the right man.

Even Sheryl Sandberg...Harvard grad, management consultant, meets an ascendant Mark Zuckerberg; right time, right place, right connections. I think whatever this initiative she's spearheading is bound to fail, because men (and not just us) are starting to wake up and realize that they're getting the shaft just so women can get ahead.

This is where Feminists are continually wrong, but don't even realize it; they think that it's society that keeps Western women (I'd say 'people', but Feminists only care about people with vaginas who were born in the West) down, when in truth, it's biology; men can do some things and not other things. Women can do some things and not other things, and it is not society's fault for this. Biology has been around a lot longer than society has been, and will still be around long after society has descended into nothingness.

I saw the page and read the whole bullshit manifesto she wrote about 'women holding themselves back from becoming politicians, CEOs and inventors', but whatever, it was a bunch of 'Daddy Government, help me!' masked as feelgood 'women can do anything they put their minds to!' bullshit.

You guys, like me, live in a place called reality; the reality is that no, not everyone can do anything; only a small fraction of society (women and men) have the discipline and aptitude to become Senators, CEOs or wealthy businessmen. You can appeal the government all you want, but no amount of initiatives or laws can change how smart, driven and motivated god made you (or didn't).

Post: #13

Sandberg has been really annoying me lately due to the fact that tech sites swoon over her because she's "A POWERFUL WOMAN IN TECH!!", as others have already said, she was born in privilige, managed to work at both Google and Facebook, lucky shot. IMO the only reason why she's so important at Facebook is because Zuckerberg wants to shut his feminist critics from complaining that facebook's board of directors isn't 50/50 men/women. By having Sandberg at a high position and due to the fact she's a loud obnoxious feminist allows for Zuckerberg to shift the feminist attention from criticizing facebook to praising Facebook and Sandberg.

Look at this horrible list where Sandberg presents "deeply horrible stats about women"
http://www.businessinsider.com/sheryl-sa...013-2?op=1


The crazy thing with Sandberg too, is not does she see that she was born into privilege with plenty of opportunities, but she seems to think that her success was because she was a strong woman, not because she was a lucky one.
ugh.

Post: #14

Post: #15

(02-24-2013 10:06 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  The crazy thing with Sandberg too, is not does she see that she was born into privilege with plenty of opportunities, but she seems to think that her success was because she was a strong woman, not because she was a lucky one.
ugh.

I don't get why everyone is proclaiming her the world's "future most wealthy self-made woman". She's been riding the coattails of powerful men in business for many years. Where's her company?

Post: #16

(02-24-2013 10:19 PM)Hades Wrote:  I don't get why everyone is proclaiming her the world's "future most wealthy self-made woman". She's been riding the coattails of powerful men in business for many years. Where's her company?

The only way a case for her hard work would be her making connections and being great at networking while working and at Harvard.

Rumours going around now that she's not going to stick at Facebook (Can't climb further up the ladder unless Zuckerberg drops dead) so she's eying to enter politics and public service, which wouldn't be surprising as after her book comes out she'll be further in the spotlight.

Post: #17

Isn't it positive that the American women saw through this bullshit and didn't sign up in droves? That signals that they have at least some sense of reality left in their heads.

Post: #18

Quote:Women are 57% of college graduates and 63% of masters degree holders, but that majority fades as careers progress.

Because they get married and drop out of the workforce. This is how it's been for over 60 years, and it's been okay (until more and more women started to attend university at the expense of men only to get married and drop out of the workforce ten years after graduation).

Quote:21 of the Fortune 500 CEOS are women.

No one is telling women not to start the next Google, Apple or Nike.

Quote:Women hold 14% of executive officer positions.

Not that far off (further down the page) where it says 'Only 18% of women want to be CEO'.

Quote:Women hold 16% of board seats.

Then these rich, successful womyn need to buy themselves onto more boards, then!

Quote:Congress is 18% female.

As of this writing, America is still a Democracy. You want more women in office? Here's a tip; vote for them.

Quote:In 1970, Women were paid $0.59 for every dollar men made. It's now $0.77.

I'm so sick of seeing this statistic. Men also do jobs that women wouldn't do to save their lives (sewer cleaner, oil rig worker) and work more hours, no one ever cites this.

Quote:So what's going on?

'I'm just like you! I wake up and get on my private jet one step at a time just like you!'

2/10, WNB.

Quote:Women have to prove themselves more than men. A McKinsey study says men are promoted based on potential, while women are promoted on accomplishments.

Most people, men or women, are promoted based on both.

Quote:But maybe women are also holding themselves back.

Maybe they should, like, ask the government to institute and enforce policies that help them, then? I present to the Roosh Congress; President Nonpareil's Eight-Phase Hamster Minimization Plan.

Quote:In a survey of 4,000 employees at big companies, 36% of men said they want to be CEO. Only 18% of women said the same.

If she's attractive, she can marry the CEO, a lot less work and all the perks. It's becoming clear to me that this is what women really want; they don't want to work and prove that 'just because I'm a woman, doesn't mean I can't ________' or prestige, they're all about the perks.

Quote:More male college students say they want to "reach managerial level" three years after school than females.

If she's attractive, she can marry a man who reached managerial level three years after college, a lot less work. Not CEO-level perks, but still enough perks to live comfortably and lord it over the friends she hates.

Quote:Women are much less likely to say they want to be president.

Makes sense - who would vote for them?

Quote:Middle school boys say they want to be leaders when they grow up. Middle school girls usually don't say that.

You know an argument is bullshit when it uses the word 'usually', and even if this argument wasn't bullshit...so?

Quote:Successful women are more likely to feel like "impostors" who will be found out.

One does not simply...stop, the female rationalization hamster.

Quote:Despite outperforming men, female surgical students give themselves lower grades.

I'm sorry, did she just say that female surgical students outperform male surgical students? I certainly believe that some female students outperform male students, but as a collective? Excuse me while I laugh derisively.

Quote:Girls perform worse on tests when they have to check off M or F before taking it.

I don't remember the last time I took a test where I had to check my sex, and even if I did...so?

Quote:Men attribute their success to innate qualities and skills. Women attribute their success to luck and help from others.

If the shoe fits...

Quote:When men fail, they say its because they weren't interested. Women blame their lack of ability.

In my own observation this couldn't be farther from the truth; when men fail they say they weren't interested or own up to their fuck ups; when women fail, it's someone else's fault and someone else is out to get her.

Quote:Men are 60% more likely to think of themselves as "very qualified" to run for office.

Confidence; not just useful for getting laid.

Quote:So why do women seem to aspire less and be less confident?

Maybe deep, deep in the female hamster-brain they know that their success is going to be largely dependent on men, see: Sandberg, Sheryl.

Quote:Parents talk to girl babies more than boy babies.

This seems like it's a good thing.

Quote:Mothers overestimate their sons' ability to crawl and underestimate their daughters.

What in the hell does this have to do with anything? I think it's just an opportunity to post a picture of a baby.

Quote:Mothers spend more time comforting and hugging infant girls.

Women can't get ahead even though they've been supported and loved since infancy.

Quote:Mothers are more likely to just watch their infant boys play by themselves.

And?

Quote:Teachers call on boys more often.

Initiative states that it's goal is to remove the fear women have of speaking out and being successful...I would think that someone who had a fear of speaking out would be less likely to raise their hand in class.

Quote:Teachers answer boys when they call out, but scold girls who call out, and tell them to raise their hands.

What rock is this bitch living under? In University I certainly noticed, as many here likely did, that girls were far more likely to be shown favoritism, to receive higher grades just for being girls, and to be complimented for their insight by the professor (though I think this is because they wanted to bang them - I'm at least 90% certain that one of my favorite professors was banging the hottest girl in class, dude was awesome and had some tight game).

Quote:One reason limiting the ambition of women is bad is that women are often primary breadwinners.

...I'm sorry, but I fail to see the point of this quote.

Quote:41% of women are primary breadwinners. 23% are co-breadwinners. 52% of black kids are raised by a single mother.

Other than the obvious race-carding and the stealing candy from a baby that is denigrating the black community, I fail to see what the last statistic has to do with the first two.

Quote:Fortunately, the solution to much of this is pretty simple …

It never really is...

Quote:… Sharing financial and childcare responsibilities with a husband makes for less guilty moms, more involved dads, and "thriving" children.

'I feel guilty that my high-powered and AWESOME career as an HR drone for a company that makes reusable tampons keeps me away from little Sally and Michael...I KNOW! Why don't I just ask my husband to put HIS career on hold to help with the kids instead!?'

Also, the idea what men and women should get married and share financial responsibilities and child-rearing, that's fucking BRILLIANT!

Quote:Now Watch: Sheryl Sandberg And Her Husband Have Done The Impossible

All it takes to do the impossible is a little drive, some ambition, and 500 million dollars.

A poorly conceived and incoherent presentation of some facts (which themselves are probably suspect) and a bunch of unprovable 'observations'. This was stupid, and Sheryl Sandberg should feel stupid, and what little respect I had for Obama, if he continues to get behind such asinine policies, is starting to dwindle fast.

Post: #19

I love the fact that a failed idea has to be politicised.

Maybe the message didn't fail because it didn't relate.. maybe it was just a message that nobody wanted to hear.

Post: #20

I sort of wanted to post this on my facebook saying "Hey guys, this barely informed 1 percenter wants all you ladies to be career seeking feminists. With 500 M, you too can 'have it all'."

Post: #21

(02-24-2013 10:22 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  Rumours going around now that she's not going to stick at Facebook (Can't climb further up the ladder unless Zuckerberg drops dead) so she's eying to enter politics and public service, which wouldn't be surprising as after her book comes out she'll be further in the spotlight.

And guess which political party she aligns herself with?

Two guesses, and the first one doesn't count.

Post: #22

Hey guys, if my next book fails, it's because you couldn't relate to it, not because it sucked.

Post: #23

Sounds like a good marketing strategy. Her next slogan:

"See, even I failed b/c it's a mans world still. Vote me in office and I'll it all better for women".

Post: #24

I hardly think riding on a young man's (Zuckerberg's) coat-tails to fortune qualifies her as a feminist icon. For whatveer reason a young and inexperienced Zuckerberg thought he needed her at Facebook. Maybe he did, I don't know. But she really didn't achieve her success herself. She just got lucky with her connections.

Anyway, what a stupid project. Telling frazled women that their dead end job in Acccounts Receivable is the key to their sense of self-worth and self-actualization is hilarious. Reminds me of that Mark Twain book were Huck Finn (I think, school was some time back) convinces his friends to do his work painting a fence for him.

Post: #25

The key takeaway here: other women aren't going for it.

This is how feminism will fail. It's the one saving grace of women. Daughters *always* hate their mom's bullshit.