I've decided to do a series of posts on the logistics of getting a literary agent. There are a ton of blogs on the subject, some more helpful than others. Many are by agents, some are by publishing professionals, others are by established writers.
This series is based on my personal experience as a new writer: I'll start at the end, i.e., where I'm at right now, then move backward in time to when I began to write fiction, in separate posts...
Okay.
I just sent out the revised draft of Client Relations to my agent.
I pored over the draft for the zillioneth time, eliminating excess words, duplicative words, unneeded adverbs, repetitive sentence structure, missing prepositions, etc. --- after zipping up a plot point or two. Oh, did I say this was for the zillioneth time?
Imagine my bleary-eyed condition. Imagine how elated I am, too - because, day-um, I have an agent! And not just any agent. I have The Ultimate Agent.
So now? It's hurry up and wait (a) for my agent to approve of my edits; (b) for her to shop the book, assuming she thinks it's ready; and (c) for the rights to be sold. I'm not thinking past that yet!
Friday, October 11, 2013
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Client Relations Is Now Off-Line
Hi all,
I have an offer of representation from a top literary agent now, so I've deleted my posts that had excerpts from various stages of drafting.
I'm way too thrilled to blog more about it right now... more soon!
I have an offer of representation from a top literary agent now, so I've deleted my posts that had excerpts from various stages of drafting.
I'm way too thrilled to blog more about it right now... more soon!
Monday, August 26, 2013
Another Awesome Woman's Life To Celebrate
A truly kickass woman, who not only spearheaded women's power on Wall Street, but paved the way for the end of discriminatory practices against women in the business community, died at age 80 on Saturday.
Her name? Muriel Siebert.
She had a seat on the New York Stock Exchange, back when women weren't even allowed on the elevator at the Union League Club. She was the first woman to become New York State Superintendent of Banking. She formed one of the first discount brokerage firms. She spent millions to help other women in business. She developed a curriculum for high school students to learn personal finance. She used a bit of her money to buy furs and learn to fly. Oh, and she made the Stock Exchange install a ladies' room on the seventh floor.
I remember when I had my job interview at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, and my soon-to-be mentor took me to lunch at the University Club. Women were't allowed to be members, and he had to take me to a special ladies' dining room for lunch. I couldn't even peek into the main dining room. By 1987, the University Club barriers came a-tumblin' down. But so many other, more insidious barriers remain, even today, against women attaining equality, prominence and power inside diehard male bastions of the business world.
Women in business, women in the professions, women in the arts and in the trades. We still tend not to climb to the same levels as men when it comes to money, position or clout. Still, we owe a huge thank you and a moment of celebratory silence in memory of a woman who put her energy, her time, and her money, where her heart was: Toward equalizing women as power-movers and money-makers and, for heaven's sake, as people.
Her name? Muriel Siebert.
She had a seat on the New York Stock Exchange, back when women weren't even allowed on the elevator at the Union League Club. She was the first woman to become New York State Superintendent of Banking. She formed one of the first discount brokerage firms. She spent millions to help other women in business. She developed a curriculum for high school students to learn personal finance. She used a bit of her money to buy furs and learn to fly. Oh, and she made the Stock Exchange install a ladies' room on the seventh floor.
I remember when I had my job interview at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, and my soon-to-be mentor took me to lunch at the University Club. Women were't allowed to be members, and he had to take me to a special ladies' dining room for lunch. I couldn't even peek into the main dining room. By 1987, the University Club barriers came a-tumblin' down. But so many other, more insidious barriers remain, even today, against women attaining equality, prominence and power inside diehard male bastions of the business world.
Women in business, women in the professions, women in the arts and in the trades. We still tend not to climb to the same levels as men when it comes to money, position or clout. Still, we owe a huge thank you and a moment of celebratory silence in memory of a woman who put her energy, her time, and her money, where her heart was: Toward equalizing women as power-movers and money-makers and, for heaven's sake, as people.
Away, But I Have An Excuse
I have been a total bum here, ignoring my own b-to-c blog.
My reason?
I finished Client Relations (again), and have been on the hunt for literary representation. I scour published writers' bogs, hoping for pearls of genius on How To Do It (or 'How I Did It' a la Young Frankenstein). I read their stories, and, I dunno, it's such a long shot, no matter what... : /
So I've done my best, and now it's an excruciating, tortuous wait. Actually, let me re-word that: I'm scared shitless.
My reason?
I finished Client Relations (again), and have been on the hunt for literary representation. I scour published writers' bogs, hoping for pearls of genius on How To Do It (or 'How I Did It' a la Young Frankenstein). I read their stories, and, I dunno, it's such a long shot, no matter what... : /
So I've done my best, and now it's an excruciating, tortuous wait. Actually, let me re-word that: I'm scared shitless.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Making It Stink Less For The Kids
I've been reading a bunch of blog posts about how screwed up kids get (i) when their parents are divorcing or divorced (e.g., kids feel pressured to take sides); or (ii) when their parents are - well, just a mess.
http://afamilysheartbreak.com/
http://www.divorcesaloon.com/2010/09/20/octomom-nadya-suleman-broke-welfare-next-will-she-lose-custody-of-her-kids/).
So I'm thinking, okay, everything thinks divorce lawyers make it worse, by pushing people into being even more polarized. They only care about the money and don't care how screwed up the kids get. Right?
Wrong.
The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (I'm admittedly biased since I'm a Fellow) has a some terrific cheap publications, and even a couple of free links on their web site which are amazing, all of which are instructive, informative, and designed to reduce friction and tension. I've shared the links on a few blogs, and thought it only right to post them on my own: http://www.aaml.org/go/library/publications/
The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (I'm admittedly biased since I'm a Fellow) has a some terrific cheap publications, and even a couple of free links on their web site which are amazing, all of which are instructive, informative, and designed to reduce friction and tension. I've shared the links on a few blogs, and thought it only right to post them on my own: http://www.aaml.org/go/library/publications/
With all that collective knowledge (from the top 1600 divorce lawyers in the US) of exactly how rotten life can be for the kids who are in the midst of family upheaval, the AAML was able to create a Children's Bill of Rights.
Yes, it's that good. Please judge for yourself.
http://www.aaml.org/sites/default/files/childrens%20bill%20of%20rights.pdf
http://www.aaml.org/sites/default/files/childrens%20bill%20of%20rights.pdf
Monday, May 20, 2013
When I Say I'm A Divorce Lawyer
Gloves off.
These are the reactions I get when I tell people I'm a divorce lawyer:
1. Shudders and disdain: Usually that's the response from my corporate brethren and sistern, you know, the tax lawyers, commercial litigators, mergers & acquisitions specialists, intellectual property gurus -- virtually all lawyers except personal injury and criminal lawyers. Because their rep (that of the PI and criminal bar) is as bad as ours, maybe worse. They get down and dirty, too, just like we do: Sex, drugs, violence... : )
2. Pity: Usually from the corporate crew. Because they assume divorce lawyers are too stupid to go into the more high-falutin' areas of the law. Revealing I'm a Georgetown Law alum, and a former Morgan, Lewis & Bockius lawyer, usually shuts that one down fairly quickly. Along with asking the M&A lawyer if s/he knows what a QDRO is. See, most other specialities don't realize that matrimonial law requires a breadth of knowledge. In order to be any good at it, we need to know a lot about contracts, tax, real property, pensions, and estate law. As well as how to get down and dirty, of course. ; )
3. Requests for advice: Because everybody has either had a divorce, or post-divorce issues, or their brother or sister or cousin or best friend is in a pickle. And I'm, like, do I really want to give free advice on a case I know absolutely nothing about, second-guessing the lawyers in the trenches? On the other hand, can I stop myself from butting in and pontificating? Sigh.
4. TMI: That's short for 'too much information.' A whoosh of disclosures about the person's personal life comes flying at me. It's as if I were sitting next to a stranger on a plane who has to unload on somebody and that somebody is lucky me. It usually takes me a good fifteen minutes to extricate myself. I don't want to be rude, ya know? And the thing is, the person is usually not a stranger. So repeat encounters and additional disclosures are likely. I learned a long time ago: It comes with the territory.
5. Hostility: Okay, I saved this for last because it crosses age, gender, religion, race, occupation and socio-economics. And how can I respond when I'm barraged with what creeps divorce lawyers are?How we should be ejected from the planet, or banished to the swamps of Borneo without mosquito nets? I AGREE. Because if it weren't for the damn dabblers out there - the lawyers who toss 'divorce' on their list of practice areas (along with traffic tickets, wills, worker's comp, accidents, house closings, bankruptcy and criminal defense) on their website or on those paper placements in the local diner - the world would be a better place. My internist shouldn't attempt brain surgery. Not that divorce lawyers are the equivalent of neurosurgeons, but you get my drift. Dabblers make me soooo mad. Grrrr.
Being a divorce lawyer was my choice. No one forced me into it, and honestly? It has had more than its fair share of stressors and hassles.
But it has also been intensely gratifying. Like helping someone move on with his/her life to a far more positive place; getting kids to live with the parent who is providing them with a stable, safe home and learning, years later, that the kids are now successful and happy adults; unraveling the mess in someone's life efficiently and with a minimum of anger; cleaning up a post-divorce disaster so there's no room for future uncertainty; closing a deal that provides financial security and logical parenting arrangements in a nice, tight agreement...
Granted, the good moments occur less frequently than the grueling ones, but when they do? Ain't nothin' like it.
These are the reactions I get when I tell people I'm a divorce lawyer:
1. Shudders and disdain: Usually that's the response from my corporate brethren and sistern, you know, the tax lawyers, commercial litigators, mergers & acquisitions specialists, intellectual property gurus -- virtually all lawyers except personal injury and criminal lawyers. Because their rep (that of the PI and criminal bar) is as bad as ours, maybe worse. They get down and dirty, too, just like we do: Sex, drugs, violence... : )
2. Pity: Usually from the corporate crew. Because they assume divorce lawyers are too stupid to go into the more high-falutin' areas of the law. Revealing I'm a Georgetown Law alum, and a former Morgan, Lewis & Bockius lawyer, usually shuts that one down fairly quickly. Along with asking the M&A lawyer if s/he knows what a QDRO is. See, most other specialities don't realize that matrimonial law requires a breadth of knowledge. In order to be any good at it, we need to know a lot about contracts, tax, real property, pensions, and estate law. As well as how to get down and dirty, of course. ; )
3. Requests for advice: Because everybody has either had a divorce, or post-divorce issues, or their brother or sister or cousin or best friend is in a pickle. And I'm, like, do I really want to give free advice on a case I know absolutely nothing about, second-guessing the lawyers in the trenches? On the other hand, can I stop myself from butting in and pontificating? Sigh.
4. TMI: That's short for 'too much information.' A whoosh of disclosures about the person's personal life comes flying at me. It's as if I were sitting next to a stranger on a plane who has to unload on somebody and that somebody is lucky me. It usually takes me a good fifteen minutes to extricate myself. I don't want to be rude, ya know? And the thing is, the person is usually not a stranger. So repeat encounters and additional disclosures are likely. I learned a long time ago: It comes with the territory.
5. Hostility: Okay, I saved this for last because it crosses age, gender, religion, race, occupation and socio-economics. And how can I respond when I'm barraged with what creeps divorce lawyers are?How we should be ejected from the planet, or banished to the swamps of Borneo without mosquito nets? I AGREE. Because if it weren't for the damn dabblers out there - the lawyers who toss 'divorce' on their list of practice areas (along with traffic tickets, wills, worker's comp, accidents, house closings, bankruptcy and criminal defense) on their website or on those paper placements in the local diner - the world would be a better place. My internist shouldn't attempt brain surgery. Not that divorce lawyers are the equivalent of neurosurgeons, but you get my drift. Dabblers make me soooo mad. Grrrr.
Being a divorce lawyer was my choice. No one forced me into it, and honestly? It has had more than its fair share of stressors and hassles.
But it has also been intensely gratifying. Like helping someone move on with his/her life to a far more positive place; getting kids to live with the parent who is providing them with a stable, safe home and learning, years later, that the kids are now successful and happy adults; unraveling the mess in someone's life efficiently and with a minimum of anger; cleaning up a post-divorce disaster so there's no room for future uncertainty; closing a deal that provides financial security and logical parenting arrangements in a nice, tight agreement...
Granted, the good moments occur less frequently than the grueling ones, but when they do? Ain't nothin' like it.
Monday, March 18, 2013
The Lean In/Have It All Debate -- And Hope
This is a long post, but it's about two topics I'm quite passionate about: The near-dearth of women in leadership positions, and the so-called 'have it all' work-life balance debate, which isn't as gender-oriented as many claim.
Although these two related issues are easily melded into one, they should remain discrete.
Over the past few weeks, Sheryl Sandberg's book, 'Lean In: Women, Work and The Will To Lead' (you must have a subtitle in non-fiction!) has caused a gargantuan media splash, and even a 'catfight' among some prominent women. And in the midst of the brouhaha, I see a confusing blend of 'leaning in' advice with (I'm grimacing) 'having it all' proclamations.
Stop the noise.
Ms. Sandberg's book (co-written with one of her fellow Harvard graduates, writer Nell Scovell), focuses on women at the top. It's about the hackneyed 'glass ceiling' and what we, as woman, can do within ourselves to break it. Ms. Sandberg does not disregard societal and corporate impediments to gender equality. She does not suggest that women are solely responsible for the scanty number of women in the 'C-Suites' and corner offices. Instead, she seeks to raise awareness about thoughts and actions -- even subconscious ones -- that can be altered by women themselves to start increasing our numbers at leadership levels.
Everyone knows the number of women leaders -- in business, politics, the professions, the trades, even the arts -- has flatlined, despite our 50/50 + numbers in colleges and graduate schools, and our oft-hailed academic superiority over the brawnier sex. Ms. Sandberg, who is the Chief Operating Officer at Facebook, is a staunch believer that women can work to improve their chances of becoming leaders if we are more self-aware of certain gender-based stereotypes, assumptions, internal behaviors, and societal expectations that hold us back. And then take action to change those biases in specified ways.
Absolutely. It's been said countless times before in recent decades. But NOT by a major corporate leader with a huge media platform, who also happens to be a woman. Finally. A prominent female COO with the brains, power and visibility to ignite the fire under an issue that should have been in the forefront of workers and management, instead of hidden on the back burner.
So why would Ms. Sandberg's book lead to so much back-biting and anger?
Because the issues of gender-leadership lag, and 'having it all' work-life balance, are being wrapped up together in one untidy, imbalanced package. Except Ms. Sandberg barely touches on the 'work-life balance.' Is that because she 'has it all?' I'll get to that in a minute.
A phony, media-touted 'catfight' has been fabricated -- where none actually exists -- between Ms. Sandberg and Anne-Marie Slaughter, who is a lawyer, Princeton professor and former senior State Department official. In July 2012, Ms. Slaughter wrote an article in The Atlantic entitled 'Why Women Still Can't Have It All,' which noted some of the major institutional obstacles to raising a family while working, including overwhelming travel commitments. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/ Some have latched on to Professor Slaughter's article as a rejection of the feminist working mom ideal, when, in fact, the article was written after Professor Slaughter faced a family crisis and turned down a promotion in order to handle it.
In fact, in a recent interview at Wharton, Professor Slaughter acknowledged the validity of Ms. Sandberg's exhortations, and reiterated that external change was also needed to ensure that both women and men need to pursue a proper balance, both within themselves and via organizational changes, as they attained leadership positions. Or as she put it: "[Women and men need to] own what we want and recognize that if we want both the power and dignity of a profession and the love of family -- however family is constructed -- that is entirely legitimate....[And then] have the courage to both talk about it and ask for change. http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3181
Neither Ms. Sandberg nor Professor Slaughter ignore the need for systemic change, either, as stated beautifully by a Latina psychologist: "Companies and organizations [must] begin to implement major structural and policy changes designed to promote leadership among women." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/angelica-perezlitwin-phd/sheryl-sandbergs-lean-in_b_2901372.html
I can't omit to mention the searing essay written by former Lehman Brothers CFO Erin Callan, who mulls over her empty personal life during her hard-charging Lehman days: "I did have relationships - a spouse, friends and family - and none of them got the best version of me. They got what was left over." She ends her essay with a terrible lesson: If Lehman hadn't gone down in flames, she may never have discovered that she needed to learn to appreciate her life. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/is-there-life-after-work.html?ref=opinion&_r=2&
In the aftermath of Ms. Callan's essay, she has done some back-tracking, insisting she isn't sad at all. She says her essay was just a cautionary be-careful-what-you wish-for tale. A 'do what feels right, but think about it first' kind of piece. http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/15/17301962-former-lehman-cfo-erin-callan-dont-do-it-like-me?lite
That makes me raise my eyebrows a little. Her words in the essay, "I did not know how to value who I was versus what I did," and "I can't make up for lost time" are laced with incredible sorrow and regret. I think her interviewer, Ann Curry at NBC News, summarized Ms. Callan's current views better than Ms. Callan: "Just look before you lean."
Ms. Sandberg, who doesn't focus her 'Lean In' initiative on the 'work-life balance' at all, is not at odds with Ms. Slaughter. Or with Ms. Callan. Their credos are complementary: Internal initiative - if you want to 'go for it ' - plus institutional change will yield a new, more positive dynamic between work and personal life. For both women and men.
Honestly, I'm appalled by the reactions of Ms. Sandberg's critics -- mostly women -- who mistakenly combine Lean In's leadership self-help suggestions with the 'having it all' issue. Maureen Dowd lambasts Ms. Sandberg personally for 'having it all' and ipso facto unqualified to write about the gender leadership gap, denigrating Ms. Sandberg as a "PowerPoint Pied Piper in Prada ankle boots reigniting the women’s revolution." She snarks away with tart lines like: "[Sandberg] seems to think she can remedy social paradigms with a new kind of club — a combo gabfest, Oprah session and corporate pep talk. (Where’s the yoga?)" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/opinion/sunday/dowd-pompom-girl-for-feminism.html?_r=0
But... if the conversation is going to be about both leaning in and 'having it all,' because the gender leadership gap and work-life balance are inevitably connected? Well, maybe that's inevitable. Maybe my attempt to keep them discrete is artificial.
In which case, the perspective of a 'Millennial' professional woman -- the audience to whom Lean In is really addressed -- may have the greatest validity and poignancy yet. Valarie Kaur, a thirty-something activist-writer, acknowledges that 'leaning in' to careers requires female and male professionals, of all backgrounds, to 'lean on' others to perform household services. That systemic change is required, to revolutionize and innovate the workplace, in addition to personal ambition.
But, most important - and what gives me hope for the next generation of leaders, Ms. Kaur suggests that 'leaning toward' is what should really be the focus of this conversation. She writes that 'having it all' (i.e., having a fabulous career and a wonderful family life) was never part of the equation for her many many of her peers. She writes: "We never wanted to 'have it all' for ourselves. We wanted to have enough for everyone. And that is what we’re leaning toward." http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/15/lean-in-for-millennials-the-question-is-what-are-we-leaning-towards/
Ah. Hope. Now that's something we can all agree on.
I hope!
Addendum:
This article has been published in Huffington Post Women:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terri-weiss/lean-in-have-it-all-and-h_b_2904666.html
Although these two related issues are easily melded into one, they should remain discrete.
Over the past few weeks, Sheryl Sandberg's book, 'Lean In: Women, Work and The Will To Lead' (you must have a subtitle in non-fiction!) has caused a gargantuan media splash, and even a 'catfight' among some prominent women. And in the midst of the brouhaha, I see a confusing blend of 'leaning in' advice with (I'm grimacing) 'having it all' proclamations.
Stop the noise.
Ms. Sandberg's book (co-written with one of her fellow Harvard graduates, writer Nell Scovell), focuses on women at the top. It's about the hackneyed 'glass ceiling' and what we, as woman, can do within ourselves to break it. Ms. Sandberg does not disregard societal and corporate impediments to gender equality. She does not suggest that women are solely responsible for the scanty number of women in the 'C-Suites' and corner offices. Instead, she seeks to raise awareness about thoughts and actions -- even subconscious ones -- that can be altered by women themselves to start increasing our numbers at leadership levels.
Everyone knows the number of women leaders -- in business, politics, the professions, the trades, even the arts -- has flatlined, despite our 50/50 + numbers in colleges and graduate schools, and our oft-hailed academic superiority over the brawnier sex. Ms. Sandberg, who is the Chief Operating Officer at Facebook, is a staunch believer that women can work to improve their chances of becoming leaders if we are more self-aware of certain gender-based stereotypes, assumptions, internal behaviors, and societal expectations that hold us back. And then take action to change those biases in specified ways.
Absolutely. It's been said countless times before in recent decades. But NOT by a major corporate leader with a huge media platform, who also happens to be a woman. Finally. A prominent female COO with the brains, power and visibility to ignite the fire under an issue that should have been in the forefront of workers and management, instead of hidden on the back burner.
So why would Ms. Sandberg's book lead to so much back-biting and anger?
Because the issues of gender-leadership lag, and 'having it all' work-life balance, are being wrapped up together in one untidy, imbalanced package. Except Ms. Sandberg barely touches on the 'work-life balance.' Is that because she 'has it all?' I'll get to that in a minute.
A phony, media-touted 'catfight' has been fabricated -- where none actually exists -- between Ms. Sandberg and Anne-Marie Slaughter, who is a lawyer, Princeton professor and former senior State Department official. In July 2012, Ms. Slaughter wrote an article in The Atlantic entitled 'Why Women Still Can't Have It All,' which noted some of the major institutional obstacles to raising a family while working, including overwhelming travel commitments. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/ Some have latched on to Professor Slaughter's article as a rejection of the feminist working mom ideal, when, in fact, the article was written after Professor Slaughter faced a family crisis and turned down a promotion in order to handle it.
In fact, in a recent interview at Wharton, Professor Slaughter acknowledged the validity of Ms. Sandberg's exhortations, and reiterated that external change was also needed to ensure that both women and men need to pursue a proper balance, both within themselves and via organizational changes, as they attained leadership positions. Or as she put it: "[Women and men need to] own what we want and recognize that if we want both the power and dignity of a profession and the love of family -- however family is constructed -- that is entirely legitimate....[And then] have the courage to both talk about it and ask for change. http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3181
Neither Ms. Sandberg nor Professor Slaughter ignore the need for systemic change, either, as stated beautifully by a Latina psychologist: "Companies and organizations [must] begin to implement major structural and policy changes designed to promote leadership among women." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/angelica-perezlitwin-phd/sheryl-sandbergs-lean-in_b_2901372.html
I can't omit to mention the searing essay written by former Lehman Brothers CFO Erin Callan, who mulls over her empty personal life during her hard-charging Lehman days: "I did have relationships - a spouse, friends and family - and none of them got the best version of me. They got what was left over." She ends her essay with a terrible lesson: If Lehman hadn't gone down in flames, she may never have discovered that she needed to learn to appreciate her life. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/is-there-life-after-work.html?ref=opinion&_r=2&
In the aftermath of Ms. Callan's essay, she has done some back-tracking, insisting she isn't sad at all. She says her essay was just a cautionary be-careful-what-you wish-for tale. A 'do what feels right, but think about it first' kind of piece. http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/15/17301962-former-lehman-cfo-erin-callan-dont-do-it-like-me?lite
That makes me raise my eyebrows a little. Her words in the essay, "I did not know how to value who I was versus what I did," and "I can't make up for lost time" are laced with incredible sorrow and regret. I think her interviewer, Ann Curry at NBC News, summarized Ms. Callan's current views better than Ms. Callan: "Just look before you lean."
Ms. Sandberg, who doesn't focus her 'Lean In' initiative on the 'work-life balance' at all, is not at odds with Ms. Slaughter. Or with Ms. Callan. Their credos are complementary: Internal initiative - if you want to 'go for it ' - plus institutional change will yield a new, more positive dynamic between work and personal life. For both women and men.
Honestly, I'm appalled by the reactions of Ms. Sandberg's critics -- mostly women -- who mistakenly combine Lean In's leadership self-help suggestions with the 'having it all' issue. Maureen Dowd lambasts Ms. Sandberg personally for 'having it all' and ipso facto unqualified to write about the gender leadership gap, denigrating Ms. Sandberg as a "PowerPoint Pied Piper in Prada ankle boots reigniting the women’s revolution." She snarks away with tart lines like: "[Sandberg] seems to think she can remedy social paradigms with a new kind of club — a combo gabfest, Oprah session and corporate pep talk. (Where’s the yoga?)" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/opinion/sunday/dowd-pompom-girl-for-feminism.html?_r=0
I find Ms. Dowd's insults patently offensive. (Ms. Dowd had to correct one of her comments, post-publication, for quoting something from 'Lean In' completely out of context to support her ridiculous thesis.) What an counter-productuve non-sequitur, by a journalist I used to respect, to an incredibly important conversation. Another reason I'm glad I cancelled my subscription to The New York Times.
Other critics similarly have blasted away at Ms. Sandberg's wealth and background, again confusing her leadership focus with lifestyle issues. For example, her book is referred to as a 'privileged manifesto' (e.g., http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/ae/book-reviews/lean-in-sheryl-sandbergs-privileged-manifesto-679615/). Even self-styled critics on Amazon lob these kinds of grenades at her, instead of leaning BACK in their armchairs to read what Ms. Sandberg actually wrote.
All these critics completely disregard the positive impact 'Lean In' is already having -- It's bringing the gender-leadership lag in issue back into the limelight. Okay Ms. Sandberg may have it all: Brains, money, looks, power, platform, position. But none of that dilutes the power of her message, and her insights ito how woman can help empower themselves.
But... if the conversation is going to be about both leaning in and 'having it all,' because the gender leadership gap and work-life balance are inevitably connected? Well, maybe that's inevitable. Maybe my attempt to keep them discrete is artificial.
In which case, the perspective of a 'Millennial' professional woman -- the audience to whom Lean In is really addressed -- may have the greatest validity and poignancy yet. Valarie Kaur, a thirty-something activist-writer, acknowledges that 'leaning in' to careers requires female and male professionals, of all backgrounds, to 'lean on' others to perform household services. That systemic change is required, to revolutionize and innovate the workplace, in addition to personal ambition.
But, most important - and what gives me hope for the next generation of leaders, Ms. Kaur suggests that 'leaning toward' is what should really be the focus of this conversation. She writes that 'having it all' (i.e., having a fabulous career and a wonderful family life) was never part of the equation for her many many of her peers. She writes: "We never wanted to 'have it all' for ourselves. We wanted to have enough for everyone. And that is what we’re leaning toward." http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/15/lean-in-for-millennials-the-question-is-what-are-we-leaning-towards/
Ah. Hope. Now that's something we can all agree on.
I hope!
Addendum:
This article has been published in Huffington Post Women:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terri-weiss/lean-in-have-it-all-and-h_b_2904666.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)