With the development of modern civilization and evolution of human rights the social, political, and economic equality between men and women still has not lost its actuality. The feminist movement significantly expanded the scope of women’s responsibilities, however, there are still different standards by which women are being judged in the USA and the rest of the developed world. Sheryl Sandberg in her article “Why I Want Women to Lead In” raises an important issue of women’s ceasing to make progress at the top of industries. Being one of the few women occupying chief executive positions in Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg clearly states that despite educational excellence it is difficult for women to cope with inequalities in the workplace and achieve a sustainable career growth. Although her claims that women are judged by different standards and it is harder for women to combine personal life with career seem to be valid, Sandberg’s argumentation fails when trying to explain men’s fault in women’s failure, reasons of why women are subjected to different societal norms, and personal qualities a woman needs to posses when aiming at top executive position.
A woman, being forced to choose between family and career growth, rarely gives preference to the latter, however this might be the matter of a woman’s personal choice not a harmful tendency. Although men rarely face the hard choice between family and career aspirations, there is no evidence that it is men who create additional barriers to women’s success. Sheryl Sandberg was trying to show that men expect their wives to step away from their career track, which leads to the respective results of only 40% of women returning back to a full time work (Sandberg 472). At the same time, Sandberg claims women having to make many small decisions prior to abandoning their career aspirations. Being aware of the forthcoming family life, women choose lesser career prospects to facilitate potential marriage and family opportunities. Nevertheless, such expectations cannot be considered a part of men’s discrimination towards women. Modern USA and the rest of the developed world grant both men and women equal starting opportunities, which means that choosing to sacrifice career for the sake of family is women’s rational choice to secure their family prospects. Sandberg’s own example of successful combining family with top executive position only enhances this point: a woman can achieve everything on her own provided that she is truly willing to do so. Most women blame the whole system for making them choose, however, very few try to escape the system and find a compromise between family and career. At this point, men turn out to be the silent observers of such harsh reality and cannot help women define priorities in their life.
People’s judging personal standards of both women and men has a long lasting history, therefore, one cannot simply say that modern successful women are being underestimated by both men and women, whereas men are being appreciated by both at the same time. Sandberg’s example with Flynn and Anderson’s experiment only shows a true state of current situation rather than explains why such prejudices occur (Sandberg 473). To make things better, women should clearly understand that every society has its ideal sets of traits both men and women should possess and try to balance between accepting men’s leadership styles. Being judged as “too aggressive” or “not a team player” does not necessarily mean that these attributes are prescribed to person simply because it is a woman. Finally, Sandberg’s call for “changing attitudes” (Sandberg 473) should be addressed to both men and women separately and in different ways, because while men have a more or less unified beliefs about women’s character and traits, women still do not have unity in their views and judgments.
Finally, Sheryl Sandberg claims that women need to compromise and sacrifice on a daily basis (Sandberg 473), whereas never claimed what personal traits should a woman possess to make their sacrifices work. It is not a secret that modern women have more mobility and life opportunities, and it means that millions of women already compromise. However, Sandberg’s central argument was that women are limited in their prospects to reach top executive positions, so how is it possible that modern women sacrifice their time and resources but the overall situation does not change and men still occupy the main decision making positions? Sandberg has never explained how she managed to grow to Facebook board executive by working only till 5.30 P.M (Sandberg 474). The thing is that Sandberg does not truly reveal her secret of how modern woman can reach such heights and what personal traits and skills should woman possess to become an executive of such level. How can women close “the leadership gap” if those women who reached the top do not share their secrets and strategies? The main point of this criticism is that Sandberg raises the issue of women’s deprivation, whereas never answers how it can be managed.
CONCLUSION
Sheryl Sandberg’s attempt to explain the reasons of women’s discrimination on top-level executive positions relied on assumptions that women have to make a complicated choice between family and career and are subjected to double standards. In addition, men were seen as people occupying the most decision-making positions and not willing to share their power with women. Nevertheless, Sandberg’s own success story clearly shows that women are making their own choice between career and family. The issue with double standards is not something new in our history, therefore, should be considered by women aiming at career growth. Despite Sandberg’s desire to initiate changes in the current perception of the situation, there is still no unity in modern women’s views of how successful women should look like. Finally, Sheryl Sandberg urges to stop trying to get all, whereas fails to explain what skills and traits a woman should have to succeed.
