We're on! Leslie, what was your first reaction to "Lean In" as someone who wrote a prescient book a few years ago?

I am horrified at the way it's being misrepresented. The book is just common sense and thorough research, but the reaction has been insane.

This morning my former babysitter said to me, "I hear Sandberg says that women are lazy." This could not be further from the truth, and yet the media and critics who haven't read the book are portraying it as if SS is blaming women for not succeeding, which is totally untrue.

I think people were quick to comment before reading. "Lazy" is a really disappointing way to hear it played back.

SS acknowledges all the external reasons women don't rise to the top, from institutional barriers to political, social and cultural ones, but what she's chosen to talk about in this book are the internal barriers, which are real and undeniable and critically important to address.

I echo those concerns -- but am also disappointed that people are convinced her advice is only for a "privileged" group of women. I think all women, particularly younger women, benefit from what she has put out there.

I thought it was a good contribution to the conversation. she didn't deny the barriers.

There's simply no question that women hold themselves back in a myriad of ways, and that until we start talking about those as well as the other obstacles we will not succeed in overcoming the barriers that continue to prevent us from assuming our fair share of decision making responsibility in this culture.

I loved that she put the excerpt in Cosmo.

I agree that the book seems to be misrepresented. I personally am someone who chose to lean back after I had a baby, still, now looking to ramp up, I'm finding Sandberg's advice very accessible...

...even in mid-level positions.

People seem to assume that just because SS went to Harvard she;s only talking to elite women, which is not the case at all.

people are also attacking SS for being rich, without acknowledging that she is rich because she made her own success. When men do that, we lionize them, but when women do it, we always seem to trash them.

I like to look at the book as a source of confidence -- that we all need to believe enough in our capabilities to reach for what we truly want. Even if what we want is somewhat different from what we think society expects.

Agree...I found the life-story element of the book to be inspiring.

I left a career more like SS's than mine now, and I still felt inspired to look closely at what I'm doing and what more I can do.

I love the points she makes about how powerful women are perceived -- so true in my experience at big law firms.

Would anyone join a "Lean In" circle, or start one?

From what I've read of the book, it's dead on with my experience and other female leaders that I know

I thought SS bent over backward to acknowledge that women can choose what they want and nobody should expect everyone to follow the same path.

We're starting a Lean In Circle for the Women's Business Book Club I attend

I think I would like to join one. I feel a bit inspired to reach out to some of my younger colleagues and make sure they have the support that I did not have.

The double standards for how powerful and successful women are perceived are so toxic; there's such a penalty for women in so many ways where men are admired for the same thing.

I think we need to be able to talk about this without spending too much time on the choices we have made.

I think anything women can do to mentor younger women and help their peers is crucial. Despite all the hype about the Queen Bee syndrome, I find that the old girls' network is working very well these days in terms of women helping women to get ahead as men have always done.

I have to admit, though, that after reading Bennetts and Hirschman, who had similar messages to Sandberg, I found Sandberg much more palatable...

Hello all

Lisa Belkin, who just joined us, helped me when I was getting started.

But it's hard not to second guess some of our choices after reading this. I know my kid are better off for the time I spent at home, but I also know (though it's hard to admit) that I was not as happy personally then as I am now that I've gone back to work.

...Sandberg has more of a way of respecting the "home" things like childcare, especially by saying she wants a world where more men step up to the plate with this. She does not undervalue these aspects of life.

I agree with Sandberg though , that it isnt traditional "mentorship" we should be talking about

What younger women need, for one thing, are better examples

People seem to respond to these issues so personally, and so defensively, instead of considering the facts on their merits. I found this when I published The Feminine Mistake, which documented the longterm risks of economic dependency for women who drop out of the work force and the benefits of work for women, emotional as well as financial. So many people who had opted out attacked my book without even reading it, which I know because they bragged about it on Amazon reader reviews that said, "I haven't read this book, but it's an awful book, and you shouldn't read it either!" That's not exactly a sensible way to address a difficult issue.

Sandberg is one -- in a way. But she has advantages that so many women don't. That is NOT an attack. I think she absolutely gets to give an opinion, and has important advice for those who would like to be successful too

I appreciate Ann Marie Slaughter's idea that we ALL (men too) need to talk more about the ways we adjust our careers at various times to accomodate family.

But it confirms that in order to BE successful you need much of what she has... an infrastructure

But Lisa, what is SS other than a "better example" -- a brilliant, self-made woman who, unlike me and :Linda Hirshman, bent over backward to be diplomatic and unjudgmental in her book and yet still gets roundly criticized?

Leslie, I was struck that the response to this book was much like the response to yours

I think Lean In circles are a great idea.

The real feminist mistake was made 50 years ago when Betty Friedan said that women were not working because she thought waitresses, teachers, nurses and secretaries were not doing worthy work. I saw Betty Friedan speak to a hall-filled with union factory working women in Rome Italy in 1971, She told those women to get jobs. They booed her as did I.

I see Sandberg thinks like Friedan does - that the only worthy work is the work executive women do, whose wealth comes from the work of real working women

And you are right, Leslie, you are saying much the same things.

I suppose that's a good point about her bending over backwards to be diplomatic and STILL getting criticized. Some people just don't want a message of "CAN DO" at all because they want an excuse for their disappointments. "It's not anything I should do, it's the system..."

Hello! I have read the first 100 pages of the book, and while many of the issues ring true, I do wish they had been given a deeper treatment. Somehow, it seems like she is hedging her bets in the book.

QueerSpring, I disagree. I do think that she is SPEAKING to women who aim to do the kind of work that she is doing. And she is addressing the problem of the lack of women in positions like hers. But she doesn't devalue other work in any way. It's just not what her book is about

i thought SS focused on women with choices--highly educated women-- because it's our "opt-out" that makes it harder for the women we work with and the women we might or could supervise.

Linda Hirshman and I have been talking this week about how much of ss's book says what we said, only in a more ingratiating tone, and yet she still gets trashed! Apparently if you talk about the ways women sabotage themselves you just can't win.

I agree with QueerSpringIn13 a bit. Betty Friedan was really focused on "high level" women's work. She also completely ignored the fact that poor women (mostly African American) had 'left the home' a long time before she called on mostly white women to start doing it.

@QueerSpringIn13 I would find that Friedan statement offensive, too, as a woman who put myself through college waitressing.

But, I don't think Sandberg feels that way...

As the breadwinner in my family - my husband stays home with our children - I do agree with SS that with more women at the top we will have more family friendly jobs and workplaces.

It's also highly educated women who rise in corporate hierarchies who can do the most to change institutional policies that are not family friendly, which is one reason why opting out costs everybody, because it reduces women's leverage in changing the workforce so everyone can be a better parent, male or female

success is not just the money you make but the life you live and those women who are successful only because they underpay women who do the real work are human failures

She is looking at a narrow question -- what are women doing to sabotage themselves on the way to the top. That is not the whole of women's experience in the workplace. Self-sabotage is not the only obstacle to progress. It is a jigsaw and she looks at one piece. I find it a compelling look at one piece, but we should never think it is the whole conversation

When women who could take leadership roles, or government roles, or corporate roles, second-guess themselves out of those spaces AND don't try to come back (like you are, Jennifer), that has costs for all of us--all families, not just all women.

I think the book came out at an unfortunate time post Marissa Meyer's Yahoo! thing with the ban on work at home...

No one is denying that women at the top would be better (for everyone, not just women!), but.. are we the ones holding ourselves back?

I think MANY women at the top will institute practices to help other women, but not ALL will...and that's OK.

I'm particularly interested in how to lean in if you are already leading an organization. Sandberg's description of "walking backwards in a minefield wearing high heels" seems about right.

Obviously there's no one answer -- we hold ourselves back, the culture holds us back, the structure of the workplace holds us back, etc. -- and we have to work on all facets of this problem in order to make progress. But that shouldn't justify attacking anyone who tries to talk about one piece of it.

Coming back was insanely difficult though and I don't think women understand that when they "lean back" -- at least I didn't.

Lama, absolutely not--but that's the chicken and the egg problem, and SS names it. Ii think many of us recognize the ways we hold ourselves back---but absolutely, institutions, culture and society hold us back too.

...because SS actually does talk about all pieces of it...

Lama, we are not the only ones. But SS makes a good case (and the videos on her website from the Stanford Biz School profs, make a better one) that women play a role. Again, I question what percentage of what holds women back are external vs internal barriers, but I don't think it's wrong to address either just because it isnt the whole.

Leslie - I agree re more women leaders. In my small sphere I've been able to make my department more family friendly

Whether you're leading an organization or working at the entry level, there are always things you can do to move the issues forward. Do what you can with where you are.

That's what really resonated when you wrote for Motherlode, Jennifer--you admitted it. Leslie and I were at a lunch, years ago, when an older woman friend of mine said it, too. Most people don't say it. Not everyone has a hard time coming back. Not everyone wants to. But too few women own it when it's hard.

I don;t think that generalizing about elitist women is very helpful. Many women in elite situations have made enormous contributions to helping other women, and continue to do so. That's the kind of broad brush vitriol that seems misplaced.

But my question is.. if there are internal barriers, ones that are part of this and that are causing us NOT to lean in, and to hold ourselves back, wouldn't you say that the reason we have those internal barriers is because of the other external factors (society, institutions, culture, etc..

I'm not sure why they don't -- I thought owning it was liberating. I finally admitted to myself that I was a happier, better mother with a career than I was as a SAHM and I was going to turn over every rock until I found something. And I did.

I like the idea of a synthesis between Sandberg and Sylvia Hewlett. If we have more women in top management (ala Sandberg), they can sponsor women below them, pulling more through the pipeline.

The Feminine Mistake was in large part about how unprepared women are for the difficulty of reentering the work force after they;ve opted out, because neither our culture nor the media have informed them adequately. It was published in 2007, but the same holds true today.

That it is hard isnt a reason not to do it, though. When people "optout" they do it for defensible reasons. To not recognize that it might be hard is not wise, though. And to treat an economic decision as an emotional one is unwise, too. We enter jobs strategically but depart them emotionally. Leslie makes the good case that that makes no sense.

Jennifer, I think people are afraid to admit because they are afraid they will look like "bad moms" .. and plus there has been a huge SAHM push (it's the hardest job.. etc.. ). I think that everyone needs to find what works for them and what makes them happiest and I'm glad it worked so well for you! :)

I've already found myself "leaning in" more and encouraging others to do so, as well.

Anne Marie. Joan. You are very quiet...

Yes, Lama, Yes! I loved what SS said about women receiving not just permission but encouragement from others to leave it all behind. It's hard to charge forward in your career when everyone expects you to step back after baby #2.

I read the book and wish there was more about multitasking. I find the distraction of having to constantly think about and multitask kids/home/work to be the number one reason I don't lean in more.

Leslie, I love your book. I have many friends who made the mistake and I think about your book when I see them.

Interesting Nanette. I find I am far more aware of my behavior and affect, too. And I went into skeptical, but became a believer. Anyone else?

It is a hard job -- I know some great SAHMS including my sister. They love it and that's great. I didn't love it and it made me feel guilty -- like I didn't love my kids enough. I had to make peace with that feeling.

QueerSpringIn13, I have to ask you to moderate your language or ask you to leave the conversation.

I'm expecting baby #2 and have been pleasantly surprised that no one has asked me if I'm going to quit my job. Planning to come back to work and lean in as much as I can on limited sleep...

My experience is that while external factors affect me, I can not use them as an excuse to not confront the internal barriers. I have to get up, move forward and walk through them.

Thank you KJ. No name calling on Motherlode.

A lot of the discussions we are having here - whether it is about internal or external barriers or whether the book caters to elitist women - could've been avoided if she had taken a stab at talking about her viewpoint on what is success, what should a society value and what brings us a sense of happiness and fulfillment. I found the book lacking in that context. Even if this is different debate, it gives us a sense for her perspective and starting point.

Well, Alex, it is illegal for them to ask you. Do you think they aren't thinking it either? That would be refreshing.

I do think cultural voices--like, for example, Pew only asking if WOMEN should work part time--are loud. It's impossible to know how much they play into our internal voices. That's one reason we need to work for change. We also need to talk among ourselves and to ourselves--as SS suggests--to drown them out.

Ha! You're right Lisa, but even my friends haven't asked. But no, I don't think my coworkers are thinking it either. And I work in software / aerospace!

External barriers are very real .... But even if they were gone, I'd still struggle with internal barriers.

Lori - totally agree. That's why I'm working on mine :-)

One of the things I think does not get talked about enough, including in SS book, is money, particularly as you get older. Aging women are largely ignored in this culture, and yet their problems are enormous. More than twice as many older women end up in poverty compared with men, largely because of their erratic work histories, and yet that future does not get mentioned in many of these discussions. Most of those women were not poor when they were young, it's the loss of a partner that puts them below the poverty line later.

I wish Arlie Hochchild were here. I often think about the time bind that mothers face--and dads now too. There is SO much stress on parents. They hardly have time to breathe or READ anything, let alone become activists.

Nanette, that's so true! I'm tuning in to this chat while breastfeeding, and "reading" Sandberg's book via audiobook just to fit it all in.

Which raises the excellent point, Leslie, of how what looks like gender bias is quite often age bias. If women (and men) could ramp up and back and up again, without the reality that they would become "too old" to re-enter at full throttle, then it would expand opportunities, no?

The other thing I would like to see discussed more is the fact that the intensives motherhood phase, when you're multitasking every second and feel as if your head is going to explode, doesn't last forever. your kids grow up, and you suddenly realize you have forty or fifty more years to live, and wonder what on earth you're going to do with yourself. It would have helped me cope with the pressures when my kids were young if I'd had more of a sense that they would eventually lessen.

But you don't know that Lori and Katica! You don't know how your internal barriers would be different you hadn't grown up the way you did, or if you weren't socialized in thinking that women should act a certain way.. Men may have some internal barriers too, but they are different from ours. I'm not saying that they wouldn't exist, but the external ones, and mainly the dominant masculine culture we live in really alters the way we think of ourselves as women and affects our "internal barriers". I'm also not saying there is nothing we can do about it. We do need to step up. But we can't pretend like there's nothing out there that affects the way boys and girls are socialized and the people they become as adults.

Lama, our generations have to figure out how to play the cards we've been dealt AND work to do better by our daughters and sons.

Leslie - I agree. I've been thinking about writing "Am I too old to Lean In?" -- more about difficulties of encore career.

Leslie, totally agree younger mothers re: needing more of a perspective from more experienced mothers. But harder to find support from mothers who have kids older than yours.

Excellent point, Leslie. It is easy to get caught up on the craziness of toddlerhood and think you will never have time for anything else.

Just curious - are there any men on this chat?

W/ regard to intensive mothering and all that, yes, you do it for a few years when they're babies and then get back into other things...it may be "hard" you may take a pay cut, but it doesn't have to be as grave (or as complicated) as some make it out to be...

Everybody quotes that old line about how nobody on their deathbed ever wishes they had spent more time in the office, but I know a lot of boomer women who put family ahead of career and now that their children are grown and gone, are facing a lot of problems, and wish they had actually spent more time on their careers ((and earning money to last them through old age) instead of being insanely perfectionistic about the intensive motherhood stuff imposed by our culture, much of which is unnecessary.

Nope. SUrprised?

Good point. ;). I think that I personally struggle with the " fear of failure" and the " fear of success." There are implications to both. The question is ... Are those fears a function of society's expectations ? Or my own internal idiosyncrasies?

...of course, I speak from the position of a mid-level career person who's in it for the money, not high-level or prestige...

Not really - just disappointed. Here is an interesting review on the book - the reason why I started reading the book: rawstory.com

Lama - I totally agree with you re socialization and being a mother of a boy and a girl, I try to be very conscientious about that no was just saying that I don't want to use the external barriers as an excuse. We have to address both

We can also get support from fathers with older kids - my bosses are all fathers and have been very supportive/kind/encouraging about parenthood. I liked SS's point about how not all your mentors have to be women.

Leslie, you're so right. It's not that we wish we'd spent "more time at the office" but that we wish we'd applied for the principal job, or written the book, or joined the administration or run for office or tried to be management.

And--I've "invited" some men. Let me go do a twitter call-out. come on, guys!

Again, I agree, Leslie. I would have been sad on my death bed if I hadn't made some kind of contribution. That's why "balance" is not a dirty word for me. It still captures what we need: work and home.

And what is so wrong about loving the office? Or, at least, finding work that you are so passionate about that it IS your identity? Or, at least, a big part of it?

Agreed Katica! I think that as adults who are aware of how the external issues affect our internal barriers, we still have to acknowledge that those internal barriers exist and try to over come them. And just do better by our kids, especially daughters, but also sons.

I've seen a lot written this week about career-loving mothers who have to accept "leaning back" on their motherhood duties -- anyone want to ring in on that idea?

I soooo don't get that our culture imposes an ideal of "perfection" on mothers anymore. It hasn't been 1950 for a while. All we hear about is "bad girls" and "I need my wine" mommies and how cute it is that they let the housework slack—which is fine...

Nothing wrong with that - the world is big enough for all our choices... so long as we have choices to make :-)

...but in my circles, the days of "Perfect Madness" are long gone (or never were...)

Lisa - yes! the identity part is huge! Do you know the gender scholar Robin Ely? She studies this.

I keep coming back to the idea of pacing. Our life expectancy has changed. The tools with which we work has changed. The reality of two incomes has created change. Now we have to change the expectations that careers are full throttle and linear.

Another question we should all be asking is why men don't feel any of this is their problem, and why we collectively continue to let them get away with it -- the whole "parenting is a women's issue" bias. Why don't men participate in discussions like this, and how can we get them to do so? I spend my entire life going to events that are about improving the lives of women and girls, and there are virtually no men at them. It's as if the problems of the larger half of the human race are invisible to so many men. And will continue to be so, until we insist otherwise.

I was referring to Lisa's message.

Jennifer, isn't it about how you define "motherhood duties". I think that definition has changed over the years.

Jennifer - yeah, I "lean back" on housecleaning but so does my husband, which is why we have a cleaner. Outsourcing is a fair way to divide the work!

Pacing...great observation @Lisa Belkinn. It's not linear. SS uses the analogy of the "jungle gym" vs the "ladder"

Hi all - just jumping in for a bit - meeting at 3. Hoping to start the book tonight, but here's my initial thoughts for MomsRising.org momsrising.org.

All the dads I know are waaaaay more involved than my dad was.

I spoke with an engineer this am at chevy about how she and her husband take turns accepting jobs with travel. I think that's a great model.

But Alex, you have the luxury of doing that. My husband and I will probably never be able to afford that. This brings "class" into the issue and also brings up the fact that families/women who make more money can also hire nannies or have full time day care, but most American women actually can't do this!! (and then there's the whole debate about how richer women are putting the responsibility of raising their children on poorer women, but that's a whole other debate!)

Leslie -- two thoughts. First, men don't consider this their problem because it isnt as much of a problem for them. Not as long as the "start like gangbusters out of the gate after graduation and do not pause for a moment until you are 40" construct rules. Because men don't have to use that same period of time to have children.

Leslie, some men do feel this is their problem but they don't have the same parenting resources women do. Here in progressive San Francisco the dominant parenting group excludes men.

Second, I think more men do consider this their problem. No, they arent here right now, but generationally I think young men are more concerned with these questions

Bruce Feiler argues that men are worried to ADMIT to being concerned about family balance (except in anonymous Pew surveys).

I love the jungle gym idea. I also think I could take positions along the way, like writing a book, that might leave me successful, but not at the C-level corporate job.

You really hate that Pew survey dont you KJ?

True Lama. We pay for FT daycare and it is outrageously expensive. But the money for that and the cleaners are both going to quality places that pay their employees a living wage & provide insurance.

I think the culture still imposes so much stuff on mothers that it doesn't on fathers. Nobody at my children's school ever asked my husband to crochet a square or embroider a portrait of our daughter for the class quilt. And this was a "progressive" school. My best friend quit her job as a lawyer because she had a meltdown one night about finding out at 10 pm that she was "snack mom" at school the next day. Our husbands don't worry about this stuff but it makes women nuts. Including yours truly at times.

I would agree with Lisa - men are certainly more concerned. But at the same time, most of the statistics in the book show that apparently all of us are not concerned enough.... change is not happening fast enough

We need a man to write something like SS or Ann Marie S, owning to the ways he works to balance. Loudly. And no I don't hate the survey! The poor writer handled it really well. It's hard to catch every time you're unintentionally gender-specific.

Leslie, I completely agree. My husband is a pretty equal parent, but he never feels the guilt I do, or the need to get everything done that daycare suggests/asks you to participate in.

Lattice, jungle gym, rock wall, scenic route -- whatever the metaphor, it's better than rocket ship

Leslie I hate all that school volunteering stuff and wish the US could actually spend enough on our schools that they didn't need to have all those parent volunteers.

There's no question that men are getting better -- KathleenGerson's studies have documented this extensively -- but I think that collectively women still let men get away with not stepping up to the plate enough.

So how can we be more like the men in that wonderful guilt-free way? I'm not sure it's possible.

Here's great perspective from an involved lawyer dad on my blog, The Having It All Project. Great to feature someone who slowed down to be a better dad. busysincebirth.com

Schools will continue to depend on parent volunteers until they stop supporting and subsidizing a system that takes advantage of women's free labor. Only then will things change.

Alex, I agree that the schools have to stop relying on parents for so much. Was asked to be at both daycare and my elementary this morning. I couldn't be at either!

And we are about to run a nice review of the book by the SAHD to two daughters, looking at it through the lens of what to teach them and how to prepare them. I don't have a link, because it's not pub'd yet. But men are talking.

The discussion in our house post SS has been about communication -- are we guilty of not asking for what we want of our spouse?

Given the advances in technology, and improvements in productivity, one would think that we would use the additional time for personal pursuits (including raising a family) - here's a radical thought - how about part time jobs as an accepted norm for society at large? Not just mothers...

Jennifer, don't you think we need to find a way to balance the guilt with them instead? It IS good if one parent can go to school concerts and occasionally have lunch in the classroom for "superstar week." (which I did today). It's just not good that it's mostly mothers.

@AlexDeWolf...I agree about school volunteering and NO ONE should feel guilty for not doing it. I am a WAHM and had the chance to participate...

...it is not a good use of my time and best saved for those types who do love it...and there are many who do. It's an outlet for them and it's great that it takes all kinds to make the world go round.

Neelima, I hesitate to go down that road. The problem is not that we should all work part time, and then we would have more time for our lives. The problem is that work has expanded beyond a reasonable definition of full time.

And that free labor is how all these wonderfully talented women who've opted out stay busy -- we have some amazing things going on at our elementary schools thanks to a group of women who stepped away from leadership roles. Perhaps if some of them had found a way to stay, we would be a bit closer to where we need to be.

All those silly school volunteering things could be paid entry-level jobs for people!

I always worked throughout my children's childhoods, and I made a homemade dinner every damn night, but in retrospect I wish I had done less of the intensive mothering stuff and put a bit more into furthering my career, because that's what sustains you when the kids are gone.

The part-time work suggestion also brings us back to the "egg:" both parents can't work part-time unless one has health insurance.

Health insurance should not be tied to employment. But that's a whole other problem.

Yet another problem that won't be adequately addressed until there are enough women in decision making roles to insist on it.

Leslie, that's interesting to hear. Sometimes parenting feels like advertising--how do we figure out which 10% our kids love and remember?

And you probably can't both work part time schedules that never ever conflict, so you still need some affordable childcare.

Right Lisa, for me to "get ahead".. I'm not working 35-40 hour weeks. I'm working 50-60 hour weeks!! It's so much more than full time work

Yes, KJ, but I think our mommy guilt is quite engrained. Not sure we can divide it. But the school tasks should be divided in an ideal situation.

I ordered out a lot. Don't feel the least bit guilty. But I also changed by working equation so I could work from home. It meant I was never going to be executive editor of the Times, but it did allow me a productive, rewarding career on my terms.

If I work part-time my income goes down faster than the change in cost of PT vs FT childcare.

They remember a lot less of the small stuff you torture yourself about than you would ever imagine. What they do remember is whether they felt totally loved and totally certain that they were your first priority, and if you manage to communicate that, much of the rest will not ultimately matter.

What if you company doesn't let you do part-time? Or doesn't let you work from home? Probably another issue that would be helped by more female leaders. I know more female leadership would help those things where I work.