From
The end of leaning in: How Sheryl Sandberg’s message of empowerment fully unraveled by Caitlin Gibson.
See
here for my past takes on Sandberg's Lean in thesis.
At the time
Lean In was published there were plenty of people in the center (Classical Liberals) and on the right (Hayekians, Friedmanites, Burkeans, etc.) who took exception to bad advice. Nobody can have it all. Life is full of trade-offs and though some achieve more than others, they always sacrifice things along the way. The message that everyone can have it all if only they lean in was derided as both wrong and deceptive to those who aren't already multi-millionaires. It seemed to be yet one further instance of an exceptionally wealthy and privileged person with advanced degrees, trying to imply that everyone can be exceptionally wealthy and privileged and have advanced degrees if only they want it enough. If people fail, it is because they didn't try enough is the corollary. This type of messaging borders on evil.
And so we of the center and right all said, and for that we were all dismissed as shills of the patriarchy because we refused to bend the knee to the superior wisdom of the oracle of Sandberg. It didn't matter the data, the philosophical underpinnings or the logic. We were engaged in unacceptable wrong-think. But what we said was true and now, five years later, the Mandarin Class are beginning to see that we were speaking the truth. Not that they would acknowledge that.
This whole article by Gibson is not about the vindication of the original criticisms, though there is a passing reference to them. What the article seems to focus on is showing that the life experiences of believers on the left belie the Sandberg hypothesis. It is as if we can acknowledge that the Sandberg Hypothesis was wrong only because Mandarin Class has now seen that the hypothesis does not match their own reality.
There is little sense from the article that the Sandberg Hypothesis was already wrong for known and verifiable reasons. Which is a pity. Truth is not a monopoly of left, right or center. We are all explorers trying to make sense of often confusing and shifting patterns of information. It is the underlying principles, the evidence and the logic which helps us hone in on the truth. To take the position, consciously or not, that truth depends on political position is regrettable.
The Lean In movement launched by Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg is officially over. Done. Fin.
Sandberg’s brand of self-empowerment feminism has endured waves of criticism ever since her 2013 best-selling book, “Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead” became a cultural phenomenon. But in the waning weeks of 2018 — a year in which Facebook was besieged by high-profile scandals, and the #MeToo movement continued to train attention on the barriers facing working women — the potency of Sandberg’s individualistic, motivational mantra has fully eroded.
Last month, a blockbuster investigation by the New York Times detailed Facebook’s stumbles amid an onslaught of crises, including Sandberg’s efforts to distract from the fact that Russians were using the platform to try to influence the 2016 presidential election. The story left Sandberg’s long-cultivated image as a righteous feminist icon and relatable role model in shambles.
But the final, fatal blow to the Lean In brand was a brutally blunt dismissal from Michelle Obama: “I tell women, that whole ‘you can have it all’ — nope, not at the same time; that’s a lie,” Obama told a sold-out crowd at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn during a Dec. 1 stop on a tour promoting her memoir. “It’s not always enough to lean in, because that s--- doesn’t work all the time.”
To the women who had fallen out of love with “Lean In” and the women who never loved it at all, these were resounding last words, received with relief and recognition.
“Oh, I was so happy,” says Minda Harts, founder of The Memo, an organization that supports women of color in the workplace. “I was so happy she used her platform to address this.”
“I nodded my head vigorously,” says Katherine Goldstein, a former Lean In evangelist and the host of a forthcoming podcast about working mothers called “The Double Shift.”
“I laughed,” says Audrey Kingo, deputy editor of Working Mother magazine, where the themes of Lean In — work/life balance, ambition, workplace culture — are constant topics of coverage and conversation. “I feel like her words resonated with me in the same way they resonated with every person in that audience.”
You can't help but feel from Gibson's reporting that the truth depends on who is speaking. If Sandberg says something that most Americans think is errant nonsense, then the Mandarin Class goes with Sandberg. If Obama says Sandberg is talking through a hat, then the Mandarin Class now agree that Sandberg doesn't know what she is talking about. It is an insular epistemic systemic, unmoored to reality and isolated from the more pragmatic wisdom of the masses. The Mandarin Class cares not for the validity of an argument, they care
who is making the argument.
Posts
