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

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.

Forbes writer Anne Doyle got it right. I totally agree with her statement: "[Sandberg] has the vision, the skill and the pure guts to pour gasoline on the cooling embers of the women’s movement." http://www.forbes.com/sites/annedoyle/2013/03/15/its-sheryl-sandbergs-courage-to-raise-her-voice-thats-hot-news-not-lean-in/print/

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

Yet Another Powerful Man Thinks With HIs...

Sex and powerful men.

It's a repeat topic on this blog because it's a constant issue in the real world. That potent - ha! - combination of power and alpha male, the possibility of taming it, the headiness of proximity to it.

Understandable on the part of women (or men) who find these characteristics irresistible. (Who wouldn't?) And equally so for the alpha male, who constantly believes he can get away with sexual gratification on the sly -- that is, until the media or some whistleblower is nipping at his heels, ready to expose him.

But seriously, won't these guys ever learn? How many of them will crash and burn, just from their inability to keep their pants on? My opinion: they'll never learn, and it'll happen as long as humans populate this planet.

General Petraeus is a true American hero. He's an awesome guy, no question about it. Squared-away, career military, four-star general, CENTCOM commander, director of the CIA, and totally respected in all circles of all political stripes. (You can check out his bio on Wiki -- I always thought it was kinda neat that he grew up in my neck of the woods, right here in the Hudson Valley.)

So why -WHY? - would a straight-shooter, high-roller, man who has everything risk it all for a beautiful, brilliant woman? Did he honestly think no one would EVER know? Did he think it wouldn't matter (like, not even to his now publicly humiliated, and fairly homely, but loyal, überadmirable wife?) if he compromised himself like this?

Or did he just think with his --? Well, you know. Yeah. He did.

And what about his partner? The other woman? Was she too intoxicated by his magnetism as the alpha male to consider the 'what if?' What if her husband found out? What if her two young kids were exposed to her extra-curricular activities? What was in it for her? Instant gratification, without regard for the consequences to herself, and to her family.

A powerful man is once again toppled by sex. Again.

Triple Goddess Twilight

So this post has absolutely nothing to do with divorce...
But it has everything to do with creativity and recognition and, above all, passion.

I posted it two days ago on TheNextBigWriter.com: http://www.thenextbigwriter.com/library/index.html/read/57732


When Alicia Keys sang “Send Me An Angel” at Whitney Houston’s funeral, her emotions throwing her pitch off and sending her tone into the raw zone, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjNaiNjO18I) I realized (even more than I previously had) why I’m such an Alicia fan:  I hear Laura Nyro in her.


I don’t hear Laura in too many artists.  In fact, although she’s influenced countless musicians over the past four decades, I can’t think of anyone, save Alicia, who has Laura in them. That intensity.  Her incredible songwriting talent, the astonishing lyrics, a powerful 2 ½ octave voice in her heyday, her reliance on no one but herself to provide piano accompaniment-- and above all, that oft-cited, miscited and misunderstood intangible called soul.


Let me get the info dump out of the way: Laura Nyro was born and bred in the Bronx, half-Jewish and half-Italian, trained in NYC’s famous High School of Performing Arts, managed by David Geffen and mentored by a young Clive Davis (later, Whitney Houston’s mentor). Wikipedia has all the dull stats, mostly correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Nyro.  She was strongly influenced by early Motown - Curtis Mayfield and Smokey Robinson, two of my most beloved r&b artists (“People Get Ready,” “Move On Up,” “Tracks of My Tears,” “Ooh Baby Baby” etc.) were among her favorites - as most clearly evidenced by her joyful collaboration with Patti LaBelle in 1971 (Gonna Take A Miracle).


Laura’s best known songs are her earlier, more pop-like tunes, which were tossed into the mainstream by the successful commercial artists who covered them – like “Stoney End” covered by Barbra Streisand, “Eli’s Comin’” covered by Three Dog Night, “And When I Die” covered by Blood, Sweat and Tears, and “Wedding Bell Blues” and “Stoned Soul Picnic” covered by the Fifth Dimension.   Here’s a hilarious comparison: “Sweet Blindness,” covered by the Fifth Dimension with Frank Sinatra, in sparkly 5D regalia, piping in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U60ixsEQUrA and Laura: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFTBERaBWL8 ((sorry about the creepy ad on You Tube)


By the early 1980’s, Laura became an ardent feminist, breaking sharply from the heterosexual adventures that had formed the crux of her musical forays through 1976’s Smile.  And she became very agenda-oriented by the mid- to late 1980’s, writing songs about animal rights and the injustices suffered by Native Americans.  A recluse by nature, Laura died in 1997 at the unripe age of 49 of ovarian cancer.


Info dump over.  So, does Laura Nyro – finally inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in December 2011 after being dissed for at least a decade - ring a bell with you now?  Hope so… 
                                                                                                                                                 *

Laura circa 1970 was approaching the height of her musical prowess.  In live performances, she surpassed the quality of her studio work in terms of both her passion and her vocal virtuosity. E.g.,  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drfr3yc0Ing&feature=related and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VzlKjqHU_Y.   (I’m not sure when this was recorded, but it sounds like early to mid-70’s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK_389DxhJg - I’m sticking it in here not only because I love her cover of this Dr. John song, but because she sounds so damn great.) 


I was just a kid back then, hanging with a bunch of badass kids from the wrong side of the tracks. We spent most of our free time (and we made sure we had a LOT of free time) singing and harmonizing with our record players spinning 45’s  – not just Curtis and Smokey, but the Staples Singers, Aretha, Stevie Wonder, Gladys Knight, the Temps, the Four Tops, Martha Reeves, Wilson Pickett, James Brown, the Supremes, Jean Knight, the Jackson Five, Isaac Hayes, the Stylistics, Marvin Gaye, the Isley Brothers, the Delfonics… Lord, I miss those artists from Stax and Atlantic and Motown...
 

It wasn’t until 1973 that I discovered Laura, and she quickly became my personal goddess.  Not a difficult musical leap for a white girl with a deep-rooted love of 70’s soul.  I remember the first time I heard “Poverty Train” on Eli and the Thirteen Confession with its wailing beginning- “Last call……..,” slipping into a strong, syncopated ¾ blues tempo directly following a long “yeahhhhhh.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxjk4Ck4vMA&feature=related  I was hooked. And since my vocal and piano skills were somewhat akin to hers, I practiced and performed her music throughout high school and college – her music was and is as much a part of me as those early soul singers ever were. 


I’ll never forgive myself for not seeing one of her famous Bottom Line shows in NYC until the early 90’s.  By then, her voice had been vanquished by too many years of cigarettes and hard living.  She was obese, puffed over an electric (yuk!) piano, struggling to reach any note above an A (the one above middle C, where she and I both switch to soprano mode).  The audience fawned over her every note anyway, indifferent to her shocking vocal missteps and limited piano skills.  Me, I was horrified and bitterly disappointed.
 

But I digress as usual…


Laura’s debut album was followed by a trilogy of what I believe to be among the most brilliant, mind-bending, gut-wrenching, personal collections of songs ever assembled: Eli and The Thirteenth Confession, New York Tendaberry, and Christmas and The Beads of Sweat (which has a superb cover of Carole King’s “Up on the Roof”). I could write volumes about each album.  Instead, I’ll simply quote one song from each:


Kisses from you in the flames of December’s boudoir
They fill me like melons
Touch me with chivalry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd8NsFjZCHc
“December’s Boudoir,” from Eli and the Thirteenth Confession


New York tendaberry, blueberry
Rush on rum of brush and drum
And the past is a blue note inside me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoLfWiSGRZ4&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL54D136A1D7FC1C18
“New York Tendaberry,” title track from New York Tendaberry
 

Merry boat on the river, freedom
Fresh dreams to deliver freedom
Over and over and over and over I call out your name
God’s standing on the brown earth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzYzCq4-R2A&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL7BCAD48C6F20A7EC
“Brown Earth,” from Christmas and the Beads of Sweat


The harmonies on these albums, usually on the chorus, are all tracked over by Laura, and their excitement and joy is palpable.  (In the 70’s and 80’s, she sometimes had a “harmony group” accompany her in concert, but the vocalists never matched the intricacies of her own harmonies done in the studio.) 


Then came Gonna Take A Miracle, a collection of covers from Smokey (the title track), Martha Reeves (“Dancing in the Street” and “Jimmy Mack”), Aretha (“Spanish Harlem,” definitely one of my least favorite tracks since ain’t nobody who can do Aretha) and others.  You wanna sing along to fun fun songs at the top of your lungs? This is the album.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK-XUJu46UQ (sorry about the stupid embedded lyrics).
 

Laura’s later albums – Smile, Nested, Walk the Dog and Light the Light, Mother’s Spiritual – had one or two songs that matched her early brilliance.  Maybe it was the agenda-oriented lyrics, rather than the pure sex and passion that permeated her earlier work, that made these subsequent efforts less than inspiring from a musical standpoint.  Or her  greatly reduced vocal abilities.  And as her creative output lessened, and the compilation albums increased, the worst thing – again musically -  happened: a series of live albums were issued, and Laura’s vocal problems became magnified.  I still cringe when I hear her sing “Sweet Blindness” live on Stoned Soul Picnic: The Best of Laura Nyro.


My musical goddess had unraveled.


But the heartbreak wasn’t over.  In 1997, the year in which I was diagnosed with MS, Laura died. 
 

This essay should end right here. 


Except for one thing:  After she died, Angel in the Dark, recorded while she was suffering from the cancer that killed her, was released.  And Laura’s soaring voice was resurrected.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HhJRxRxOQo


Triple Goddess Twilight, slow down. Feel the land, violet everywhere, I'll meet you there.
“Triple Goddess Twilight,” from Angel in The Dark

 

 

Women Must Sacrifice Career for Family? Really?

I'm so sick of the assumption that women - women attorneys in particular - can't hack working full-time and having a family. That women - the masters of multi-tasking - require reduced hours and telecommuting in order to raise their kids while holding down a job.

Oh really?

Guess that means that successful women who work their butts off full-time are, ipso facto, utterly incapable of having equally rewarding personal lives. Or that working women are destined to be either professional slugs or crappy wives and moms.

Pul-eeze.

And what role, pray tell, are men supposed to play in this absurd scenario? I guess, circa 1955, they're the real professionals, the bread-winners without shared family responsibilities. The ones who bring home the bacon to the "little woman" changing diapers while she's wearing her apron, cooking dinner for the family before going back to her part-time telecommuting job.

Here's the link to an ABA Journal article I just read with total disgust, that perpetuates this kind of ridiculous, last-millenium mindset.
At 50 Best Law Firms for Women, Policies Allowing Reduced Hours and Telecommuting Are the Norm - News - ABA Journal

Why Bother Being Politically Correct?

Is anyone really pc? I don't know anyone who doesn't let something truly off-color slip every once in awhile, including me.

But I have to say, when it comes to custody battles, I could truly care less which gender the prevailing parent is, as long as the kids have ended up in a good place (as best anyone can see from the facts, of course).

And this is coming from a person who went to all all-girls' school, where feminism was instilled in me as deeply as my love for classic rock and soul music. But the kind of feminism that teaches women to achieve their full potential, and not search for excuses to underperform because of their gender. To feel good about themselves, and comfortable in their own skin, and never accept anything less than equal treatment. To seek fairness for themselves, and for others. To strive for the truth, and not fool themselves with bland, meaningless euphemisms that accomplish nothing.

Not a bad way to live. Takes a lot of energy and will-power, though, which I often lack. Yet another reason to be glad someone invented chocolate, the supreme comforter of the hopelessly inadequate...

I'm Cold, and Distracted...January Blues

Too many different things going on for me - I feel like I'm being tugged in so many different directions. And it's January, ugh.

So I'm thinking about the next post I should do for HuffPo. What topic, whether I should keep doing lists, those are my main issues. And what about this blog? I'm feeling like I'm inside a black hole - have I lost my way? Then there's Client Relations - I'm getting back into it, after holiday distractions, but it's hard when I know the next few weeks are going to be so demanding. I feel so discouraged. It's almost overwhelming, trying to keep up my energy.

January has been dreadful. Jim's car got nailed in a hit-and-run. My new wheelchair already has 'issues' that haven't been resolved. The basement flooded because the plumbing and septic needed repairs. My car battery died. Then the ABS had to be replaced. My computer blew -- same damn issue as the other two Sony VAIO notebooks I had-- NEVER BUY A SONY COMPUTER!!!! Stem cell trials are still a zillion years away. And its going to be minus twenty outside tomorrow. I know I'm leaving something else out, and it's not just the obscenely high NY property taxes due this week, or how fat I'm feel and that I don't even care right now.

Yeah, I know, bitch bitch bitch.

I figure with so much crap happening in January, I'm getting it all out of the way and the rest of the year is going to be great.