Being a female civil engineer with a masters in construction law working in today's oil and gas construction industry (a male dominated environment) I have experiencing, first hand, many years of this subtle (and often not so subtle) discrimination against woman in large corporations. I applaud Sheryl's book as well as her efforts to open up this debate within western industry and society....and hope it forges an easier pathway for my two teenage daughters
excellent! I really appreciate how real she is about life, about herself. What is great is, along with her strategies, she is not blaming men or blaming this or that... she provided a means of communication, not victimization.
Electrifying speech and firm articulated exposure in terms of uplift the Women insightful things plus inherent potential standpoint views are substantially couching all sorts of her vibrant expressing incredible things that are invaluably remarkable one that is totally encompassing her way of shining interpretative style with swathe of women potential caliber. Pretty unique and Remarkable stand out ( Inherent things ) Have a big at prosperous day Sandberg
Sheryl gets it wrong about Maggie Thatcher being the only female PM- there were two other female PMs before MT arrived on the scene- Indira Gandhi (in office from 1966), Golda Meir (in office from 1969), plus of course Sirimavo Ratwatte Dias Bandaranaike was a Sri Lankan politician and the modern world's first female head of government from 1960 onwards.
Actually, Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir were both out of office by the time Margaret Thatcher came in. Maggie was all on her own. Sheryl says that when Thatcher was the prime minister she was "the only female head of government when she was elected" which is true b/c the others were finished with their terms. Even Sirimavo Ratwatte Dias Bandaranaike was out in '77, Thatcher became PM in '79 I believe.
Hi Rupa, Sheryl, in this segment spoke about Margaret Thatcher being the only women world leader at that point in time(1979). Mrs. Gandhi was not PM of India in 1979 after the emergency act. It was Charan Singh (1979-1980). Check the list of Indian Prime Minister's in wikipedia. First female state of head :In 1960 Sirivamo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka became the world's first female elected Premier Minister. Bintha Surendran
Sheryl is a true inspiration,she's really brave.But we-the common women and men-we fight over sexist issues so much that often we often forget that we both are human beings.we are equal,even our goal is the same - we forget it and so we fight.
Will Ganness And I was wondering,no one can hold such a big post without talent/hard work.Sheryl must be talented,why would Mark employ someone at the biggest post of his company who has no talent at all?
***** Oh yeah, it says a lot about me ! Because Anila the colored woman from a poverty-struck third world country is the reason behind the day to day oppression that is faced by first world citizens. Sorry if I offended you with my third world feminism that stands against child marriage, dowry and domestic violence. You're the saints and we're the monsters. Happy ? :)
So many men whining about feminism on this video. Did you even watch it? I'm embarrassed for you. This discussion is about women become leaders in society, where gender diversity is sorely lacking.
Trying to push women into leading positions, because they are women, follows the exact definition of sexism. Because of this perspective we spend more, and unequal amount of, resources in form of scholarships and counseling and support for women, because they are women. Also, don't think it's good for those women either! By these incentives they get pushed to join a field and overtake tasks that they would not see worth overtaking if it was not for the incentive. They end up hating what they do or quit after wasting multiple years of their lives. I'm an student and a teacher, and I see people who study computer science in University of Maryland, because they were converted by feminists who think like you, and they hate their lives. our introductory course has 45% female, but 3 semesters in there are only 5 girls in a class of 32. Gender diversity be damned if we need to sacrifice peoples', (women's) choice and comfort for it. If less women want leading positions, let there be less women in that those fields. Just like if less women want to become lumberjacks than man, we should not have any problem with lack of gender diversity in that field either.
Data that is erroneous in this talk: Indira Gandhi became Prime Minister of India in 1966 - 13 years prior to Margaret Thatcher who was elected PM in 1979. So, M. Thatcher was *not* the first PM in the world. I believe it was Indira Gandhi.
i commented on her talk 2 years ago. i didnt agree with her. in 2 years, i understand and face similar issue. it is frightening that 2 years and the experience of leading at work made me realise this problem is real..and unfairness exists ..
i work as a female professor, I v seen many first hand discriminations at work. promotions. advancements when i grew higher than many men. This is not new. Google studies, for example "Male managers 40 per cent more likely to be promoted than women" Or delve into gender pay gaps: Hollywood's gender pay gap is 'crazy': Natalie Portman. This things exist but they particularly show up when a woman achieves more than the people around herself. Otherwise for an average achiever it is not much of a difference. It doesn't solve a problem to choose a female, which is clearly not stronger than the rest of the team including other women, as the manager/president. Many organisations use this to show themselves as diverse! and also use that woman to promote the agenda of the higher manager. This is again making use of women. My point is exactly about the issues raised in the articles related to promotion and gender pay gap.
The decision of a career woman to stay in her career while postponing childbirth might lead to her having more money and, hence, the ability to afford childcare with greater ease. But, at the same time, her biological fertility is diminishing, and the difficulty and the risk of maternal mortality that she will have with the birth of her first baby are increasing. Sure, sure... do you own calculus, woman! But natural selection has the final say in what your grade is in that particular math class. An anecdote: My former sister-in-law was a model with acting ambitions; she delayed her first pregnancy until it was almost too late, then tried to catch the Last Train to Motherhood... and miscarried. She's half-crazy now, diagnosed with depression, takes drugs (for most of which she has a doctor's prescription), and watches herself age through her sixties in her bedroom mirror, her Darwin Award bright and shiny in her mind's eye.
Why exactly, I mean you have not heard about the other side of the story. What if she just does not know about what this "Jay" has done and with whom he has talked about this idea. what if she is the person who is lying? I'm just saying, just because you want that story to be true and have no other dimensions or misunderstanding involved in it, you should not believe it.
Women doing the same job as men but earning less... How about if that person is 10 years senior than her? Doesnt that affect salary difference as well? So the argument is shallow .. They might be doing same job but seniority do play a role
Heh. "The will to lead." The choice of leader is a pragmatic matter, intended to serve the purpose of achieving the group's goals. It isn't supposed to be the outcome of a battle of egos. Groups that saddle themselves with inferior leaders, simply because they think picking a woman, or a black, or a homosexual, etc., is "fair," don't win the real competition, the external competition, the competition against competing groups, and thus don't survive. And so we see, again, that the right thing to do isn't necessarily the fair or the "progressive" thing to do. Survival and success for the group, and not for the leader of the group, is what should guide the choice of leadership.
I'm surprised that Sheryl didn't blame men for the ice ages and for the eruption of volcanoes. There is no such thing as "stereotype threat." Most people who become aware of a stereotype don't conform to it. Rather, the stereotype is either (more or less) true or false. If someone told me that people like me can't do something that I wanted to do, then I'd work as hard as I could to prove them wrong and then rub their noses in it afterward. If it turned out that my detractor was right, then it isn't because he psyched me out. It's because he was right to start with: the particular stereotype he used happened to be true in my case. Stereotype threat is the latest excuse invented to explain away the race gap in IQ test scores and school grades. Decades of research have proved that most of the variance in such things has genetic causes, but this conclusion isn't politically favored. So from time to time we get some sort of psychobabble or Marxist socioeconomic nonsense to serve as a red herring.
I'm a huge fan of feminism myself actually, seen quite a few videos with 2 women, sometimes more, often doing cool stuff with shaving cream, even warm oil. But this video from Mark Zuckerberg's secretary is the most boring clip ever, too many clothes, ugly nerdy actors, and no action. I give it 1/10
The problem with Lean in and many other feminist ideas is that it concentrates too much on women and what they should do to change to adjust to the male dominated world. What about the men? Wouldn't it be better if we started disliking men who only care for themselves and make them justify their raises as much as women? I think it's good that women do and need to think communally, we should ask men to think and act more like it too, instead of expecting them to be selfish assholes. Otherwise, good book.
Agreed Elizabeth Kall! So many men claim to uphold egalitarian views, but there is a difference between preaching and taking action on behalf of said beliefs. People respond to consequences, men included. Until and unless men suffer a direct loss to themselves, they will not be motivated to respond. Harsh? Yes. Dishonest? Hardly.
Mark Zuckerberg's secretary writes a book advising Women need to "lean in" - huh lean in to what, the oven? The dishwasher or the washing machine? Or maybe the bedroom? weird. P.S. who is the gaylord at the start of this video?
I love Sheryl. So great to be watching these videos again.
Being a female civil engineer with a masters in construction law working in today's oil and gas construction industry (a male dominated environment) I have experiencing, first hand, many years of this subtle (and often not so subtle) discrimination against woman in large corporations. I applaud Sheryl's book as well as her efforts to open up this debate within western industry and society....and hope it forges an easier pathway for my two teenage daughters
excellent! I really appreciate how real she is about life, about herself. What is great is, along with her strategies, she is not blaming men or blaming this or that... she provided a means of communication, not victimization.
Electrifying speech and firm articulated exposure in terms of uplift the Women insightful things plus inherent potential standpoint views are substantially couching all sorts of her vibrant expressing incredible things that are invaluably remarkable one that is totally encompassing her way of shining interpretative style with swathe of women potential caliber.
Pretty unique and Remarkable stand out ( Inherent things )
Have a big at prosperous day Sandberg
Sheryl gets it wrong about Maggie Thatcher being the only female PM- there were two other female PMs before MT arrived on the scene- Indira Gandhi (in office from 1966), Golda Meir (in office from 1969), plus of course Sirimavo Ratwatte Dias Bandaranaike was a Sri Lankan politician and the modern world's first female head of government from 1960 onwards.
Actually, Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir were both out of office by the time Margaret Thatcher came in. Maggie was all on her own. Sheryl says that when Thatcher was the prime minister she was "the only female head of government when she was elected" which is true b/c the others were finished with their terms. Even Sirimavo Ratwatte Dias Bandaranaike was out in '77, Thatcher became PM in '79 I believe.
Stephanie Dove Indira Gandhi and Thatcher overlapped for few years at least.. Indira Gandhi in her final tenure was the Prime Minister from 1980-84.
Hi Rupa,
Sheryl, in this segment spoke about Margaret Thatcher being the only women world leader at that point in time(1979). Mrs. Gandhi was not PM of India in 1979 after the emergency act. It was Charan Singh (1979-1980). Check the list of Indian Prime Minister's in wikipedia.
First female state of head :In 1960 Sirivamo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka became the world's first female elected Premier Minister.
Bintha Surendran
Sheryl Sandberg would have been a nobody without Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and now mark Zuckerberg, now this make even more sense!
Men have mentors too but they are not singled out like women achievers are!
Sheryl is a true inspiration,she's really brave.But we-the common women and men-we fight over sexist issues so much that often we often forget that we both are human beings.we are equal,even our goal is the same - we forget it and so we fight.
Will Ganness I didn't know she's like that,Will.This is really surprising to know.
Will Ganness And I was wondering,no one can hold such a big post without talent/hard work.Sheryl must be talented,why would Mark employ someone at the biggest post of his company who has no talent at all?
***** None of us know her personally, right? No need to freak out like that.
***** Oh yeah, it says a lot about me ! Because Anila the colored woman from a poverty-struck third world country is the reason behind the day to day oppression that is faced by first world citizens.
Sorry if I offended you with my third world feminism that stands against child marriage, dowry and domestic violence.
You're the saints and we're the monsters. Happy ? :)
So many men whining about feminism on this video. Did you even watch it? I'm embarrassed for you. This discussion is about women become leaders in society, where gender diversity is sorely lacking.
Trying to push women into leading positions, because they are women, follows the exact definition of sexism. Because of this perspective we spend more, and unequal amount of, resources in form of scholarships and counseling and support for women, because they are women.
Also, don't think it's good for those women either! By these incentives they get pushed to join a field and overtake tasks that they would not see worth overtaking if it was not for the incentive. They end up hating what they do or quit after wasting multiple years of their lives. I'm an student and a teacher, and I see people who study computer science in University of Maryland, because they were converted by feminists who think like you, and they hate their lives. our introductory course has 45% female, but 3 semesters in there are only 5 girls in a class of 32.
Gender diversity be damned if we need to sacrifice peoples', (women's) choice and comfort for it. If less women want leading positions, let there be less women in that those fields. Just like if less women want to become lumberjacks than man, we should not have any problem with lack of gender diversity in that field either.
yes. these men often r not successful in their works too
And asking for more time off for maternity leave days while she make that decision is her?
Data that is erroneous in this talk: Indira Gandhi became Prime Minister of India in 1966 - 13 years prior to Margaret Thatcher who was elected PM in 1979. So, M. Thatcher was *not* the first PM in the world. I believe it was Indira Gandhi.
i commented on her talk 2 years ago. i didnt agree with her. in 2 years, i understand and face similar issue.
it is frightening that 2 years and the experience of leading at work made me realise this problem is real..and unfairness exists ..
Would you please share, the unfair treatment you have received?
i work as a female professor, I v seen many first hand discriminations at work. promotions. advancements when i grew higher than many men.
This is not new. Google studies, for example "Male managers 40 per cent more likely to be promoted than women"
Or delve into gender pay gaps: Hollywood's gender pay gap is 'crazy': Natalie Portman.
This things exist but they particularly show up when a woman achieves more than the people around herself. Otherwise for an average achiever it is not much of a difference.
It doesn't solve a problem to choose a female, which is clearly not stronger than the rest of the team including other women, as the manager/president. Many organisations use this to show themselves as diverse! and also use that woman to promote the agenda of the higher manager.
This is again making use of women.
My point is exactly about the issues raised in the articles related to promotion and gender pay gap.
The decision of a career woman to stay in her career while postponing childbirth might lead to her having more money and, hence, the ability to afford childcare with greater ease. But, at the same time, her biological fertility is diminishing, and the difficulty and the risk of maternal mortality that she will have with the birth of her first baby are increasing. Sure, sure... do you own calculus, woman! But natural selection has the final say in what your grade is in that particular math class.
An anecdote: My former sister-in-law was a model with acting ambitions; she delayed her first pregnancy until it was almost too late, then tried to catch the Last Train to Motherhood... and miscarried. She's half-crazy now, diagnosed with depression, takes drugs (for most of which she has a doctor's prescription), and watches herself age through her sixties in her bedroom mirror, her Darwin Award bright and shiny in her mind's eye.
THANK you Sheryl for being an inspiring leader!!! More power to you...
Ahh nikki didnt realise I'd find you here!
She really is amazing! and so are you!
Listen to the story at about 18:15 in the video. THAT one illustrates why Sandberg needs to keep telling her story.
Why exactly, I mean you have not heard about the other side of the story. What if she just does not know about what this "Jay" has done and with whom he has talked about this idea. what if she is the person who is lying? I'm just saying, just because you want that story to be true and have no other dimensions or misunderstanding involved in it, you should not believe it.
What about Microsoft?
Sheryl is amazing..
Sheryl is so amazing! =)
just to offset - "lean in" isnt a book that only women should read - its more imp for men to read it
Direct and indirect comment to me mom. Thank u
Sandy...
Women are taking anthropology and social science as their master degree.
It is not men's fault..
14:30 - Some of them have babies and leave the workforce... you can't do much about biology.
Women tend to take social sciencd
Women doing the same job as men but earning less...
How about if that person is 10 years senior than her?
Doesnt that affect salary difference as well?
So the argument is shallow ..
They might be doing same job but seniority do play a role
Is anyone else uncomfortable that Eric brought the 30% off copy of Lean In to the interview?
shitty opinions like this just make the book so truthful and full of senses
Heh. "The will to lead." The choice of leader is a pragmatic matter, intended to serve the purpose of achieving the group's goals. It isn't supposed to be the outcome of a battle of egos. Groups that saddle themselves with inferior leaders, simply because they think picking a woman, or a black, or a homosexual, etc., is "fair," don't win the real competition, the external competition, the competition against competing groups, and thus don't survive.
And so we see, again, that the right thing to do isn't necessarily the fair or the "progressive" thing to do. Survival and success for the group, and not for the leader of the group, is what should guide the choice of leadership.
22:27
I'm surprised that Sheryl didn't blame men for the ice ages and for the eruption of volcanoes.
There is no such thing as "stereotype threat." Most people who become aware of a stereotype don't conform to it. Rather, the stereotype is either (more or less) true or false.
If someone told me that people like me can't do something that I wanted to do, then I'd work as hard as I could to prove them wrong and then rub their noses in it afterward. If it turned out that my detractor was right, then it isn't because he psyched me out. It's because he was right to start with: the particular stereotype he used happened to be true in my case.
Stereotype threat is the latest excuse invented to explain away the race gap in IQ test scores and school grades. Decades of research have proved that most of the variance in such things has genetic causes, but this conclusion isn't politically favored. So from time to time we get some sort of psychobabble or Marxist socioeconomic nonsense to serve as a red herring.
👑
Facebook is evil, so she must be evil!
Good morning. Sheryl
Just wonderful
Sheryl .love you
meeting poor. Made rich women
Meeting any public. .made. only
poor ..
Reason...i no want.your money
Only love
Sheryl, you don't lead. Mark does.
Oh, you so full of senses Twatalot C. You must be Feminist long time.
Sheryl. I no fighter.men
but .some friend. I no like
Fighter men
She's so cute...
I'm a huge fan of feminism myself actually, seen quite a few videos with 2 women, sometimes more, often doing cool stuff with shaving cream, even warm oil. But this video from Mark Zuckerberg's secretary is the most boring clip ever, too many clothes, ugly nerdy actors, and no action. I give it 1/10
The problem with Lean in and many other feminist ideas is that it concentrates too much on women and what they should do to change to adjust to the male dominated world.
What about the men? Wouldn't it be better if we started disliking men who only care for themselves and make them justify their raises as much as women?
I think it's good that women do and need to think communally, we should ask men to think and act more like it too, instead of expecting them to be selfish assholes.
Otherwise, good book.
Agreed Elizabeth Kall! So many men claim to uphold egalitarian views, but there is a difference between preaching and taking action on behalf of said beliefs. People respond to consequences, men included. Until and unless men suffer a direct loss to themselves, they will not be motivated to respond. Harsh? Yes. Dishonest? Hardly.
Maria Popovici whttt
i pooped
3:30 :)
Mark Zuckerberg's secretary writes a book advising Women need to "lean in" - huh lean in to what, the oven? The dishwasher or the washing machine? Or maybe the bedroom? weird.
P.S. who is the gaylord at the start of this video?