The article summarized one of Sandberg's main points, "that women are taught that they need to keep themselves out of power, and that they therefore limit their own ambitions and sabotage their own careers."
This is probably not untrue—that women are "taught" (and thus "learn") to keep themselves out of power. But that they "limit" their ambitions and "sabotage" their own careers may not be an accurate way to describe what's going on.
If I don't express an interest in being a CEO, maybe it's because being a CEO means (in addition to hard work) balancing work with "non-work," in a society in which the "non-work"—cooking, cleaning, taking a sick child to the doctor—is continuously undervalued and overlooked. Maybe it's because, regardless of the fact that my partner may be all for me working outside of the home, the society in which we live doesn't make that easy for us.
If I I don't say that I want to become president, maybe it's because I live in a country where the election of Barack Obama, who is as equally white as he is black, is celebrated as the historic election of the first black U.S. president. A country where we won't see a female president for years, and where we still see discomfort displayed at the thought of an openly homosexual president. (And where permanent residents can't run for president.)
If "[m]en attribute their success to innate qualities and skills" while "[w]omen attribute their success to luck and help from others," maybe it's because we live in a society in which merit and power (and its cousin, masculinity) are based on notions of independence and individuality, rather than on cooperation and community support (and its cousin, femininity).
If more men think that they are qualified to run for office than do women, maybe it's because we don't have a good measuring stick for what "being qualified" means, regardless of the gender of the people in office. (And yes, the fact that still only 18% of Congress is female is thought-provoking.)
Achieving a 50-50 split in gender among executive officers is not the way for us to say, "Hoorway, we've achieved equality!" That's not only false and essentialist, it's just plain silly—like saying a world in which everyone is 160 cm tall is a world in which equality reigns.
I think it would help, though, to rethink what success and leadership means. To make sure that "mothers" aren't pegged as being primarily responsible for childcare and housework. To consider how rethinking things like support for daycare and flexible work hours is just as important as rethinking minimum wage laws and immigration policies. And that simple solution that the article claims Sandberg suggests? I agree that "[s]haring financial and childcare responsibilities with a husband makes for less guilty moms, more involved dads, and 'thriving' children"—but can we also think of the couples working overtime to support their families, the single parents living with extended families, the same-sex couples trying to raise children in a heteronormative society? Can we not assume that everyone can afford to hire nannies and housekeepers while the husband and wife "share responsibilities" and go out and make lots of money, however well- and hard-earned?
Seriously, I need to stop reading these articles until the end of the week...otherwise I spend too much time holding my head in my hands and sighing endlessly, when I really should be doing other things.
[Pink! It should be my favorite color, since I'm a girl. Obviously.]
