Diabolical Lies - May 31, 2026


The "Rise" and Fall of the Girlboss


Episode Stats


Length

2 hours and 24 minutes

Words per minute

178.26

Word count

25,811

Sentence count

1,366

Harmful content

Misogyny

336

sentences flagged

Toxicity

113

sentences flagged

Hate speech

140

sentences flagged


Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.440 You're like, I can't wait for Katie to get herself canceled for defending Sheryl Sandberg. 1.00
00:00:05.840 What a terrible thing to go out.
00:00:07.720 I'm ready to ride with you on this.
00:00:11.140 Today's episode of Diabolical Lies was brought to you by Sheryl Sandberg,
00:00:15.340 Sofia Amoruso, Lady Bosses, Boss Babes, and She-E-Os, America's Girl Boss, Elizabeth Holmes,
00:00:21.760 Netflix's adaptation of Girl Boss, Lean In, Lean In Groups, and Lean In Together, 0.98
00:00:26.720 and our culture's unwavering excitement to shit all over all of it. 0.98
00:00:31.360 Yay! Gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss. 1.00
00:00:34.220 Yes! Unfortunately, I have given myself my toughest assignment yet on Diabolical Lies,
00:00:39.560 and that is to convince all of you that Sheryl Sandberg got fucking womaned. 0.96
00:00:44.360 And before you say, well, Katie, we've all read Careless People by Sarah Wynne Williams, 1.00
00:00:50.680 and we know she's awful. Yes, and... 0.64
00:00:54.580 Let women be awful! 1.00
00:00:55.540 We did not know she was awful when we womaned her. I'm mostly joking, but today I do want to 1.00
00:01:02.420 have a conversation that kind of complicates the cultural script around the girl boss archetype
00:01:07.480 and what that really was, as well as how I think we should have understood figures like Sandberg
00:01:15.020 if we had known then what we know now. Because today, lean in as a concept is basically a joke,
00:01:21.480 and the word girlboss is effectively a slur. And I think the cultural mechanisms by which that
00:01:28.060 happened and the consequences of it are not good. Boldly declaring something not good on
00:01:34.640 diabolical lies. So I'll say up front that a lot of the criticisms that we're going to read today
00:01:39.620 are things that I think you and I would actually broadly really agree with. Like some of it was
00:01:43.800 actually even written by leftist writers that we are friends with. And yet, the process of
00:01:50.660 researching this episode made me realize that the story that we have been telling about the
00:01:56.120 so-called lean-in girlboss era and the way that we've metabolized it and narrativized it as a
00:02:01.940 society and what that time period ultimately was, I think has a bit of a Mandela effect happening.
00:02:08.480 So I went into this as the type of person who would write and has written more than one snarky
00:02:15.800 lean and take down. And I came out of it with significantly more complex feelings about this
00:02:21.320 whole thing. So we're going to start today with where the sentiment stands now. So in 2022,
00:02:29.500 Time Magazine declared that ambition is out. The Guardian asked, is this the end of ambition?
00:02:37.180 The New York Times named it the age of anti-ambition. And we are going to read from
00:02:42.720 one piece that captures this anti-ambition moment in the New York Times. It is a recent story called
00:02:48.720 Girl Boss to No Boss, subtitle, They Reached the Heights of Corporate Success. Now some women are 1.00
00:02:56.340 trying to redefine what ambition looks like. So I'll have you start here with the introductory 1.00
00:03:03.920 section. An emerging slice of women who are shifting away from full-throttle careers defy 1.00
00:03:09.920 such easy characterization. These are the women of the girl boss era who have MBAs and legal 1.00
00:03:15.580 degrees to match. They've read Lean In by Sheryl Sandberg. They've stood on the shoulders of the 1.00
00:03:20.980 second wave feminists who fought for their right to work. Sixty years on from that fight, they're 1.00
00:03:26.260 also beginning to wonder whether all that career pressure they've been under was another way of
00:03:30.200 forcing them into a box. If they now want something other than more work in exchange for all that work,
00:03:35.940 Why exactly is that a capitulation? 0.99
00:03:38.760 Okay, and now I'm going to have you read a section of the article about one or two women in particular. 1.00
00:03:45.520 Ashley McCreary, for one, used to believe the pinnacle of success would be becoming the vice president of a healthcare company. 1.00
00:03:51.760 Then she became one, helping lead a startup through an acquisition, which enabled her to cash in on her equity. 0.80
00:03:57.780 To Ms. McCreary, whose parents divorced when she was 16, women's financial freedom had always been paramount, and she'd never considered being a stay-at-home mother.
00:04:05.540 Growing up, I was like, why would you ever do that? She said. But after having her first daughter during the pandemic and another two years later, she understood. It wasn't that she couldn't balance work and family, flag that. She worked remotely from her home in Louisville, Kentucky, and set work-life boundaries that her colleagues respected. Whatever, quote, having it all is, end quote, Miss McCreary felt she had it, but she didn't want it. Among other things, the periodic travel her job required now seemed totally unappealing.
00:04:34.420 So many of us are told what being successful is,
00:04:36.600 we never really thought about whether we want that or not, she said.
00:04:39.760 She left her full-time job in December of 2023
00:04:42.480 and has since been the primary caregiver for her children,
00:04:45.400 while building her own coaching service for women going through similar transitions, flag that.
00:04:50.080 But just because the move was hers to make does not mean it was easy. 0.56
00:04:53.600 Ms. McCreary knew that opting to scale back was a privilege. 0.78
00:04:56.760 Who was she to make that decision when so many women couldn't?
00:05:00.220 I'm partially really proud that I set myself up to make a choice, she said.
00:05:03.940 At the same time, I think to myself, are people judging me for not working?
00:05:08.420 Are people judging me for not having to work?
00:05:10.880 In a LinkedIn post last year, flag bat,
00:05:13.100 Ms. McCurry wrote a defense of pulling back to explain her decision.
00:05:17.200 In retrospect, she admits she was really trying to justify it to herself and her would-be critics.
00:05:22.320 But the response she got was broadly supportive.
00:05:25.120 Overall, the feedback has had the tone of, I wish I could do that, she said. 0.98
00:05:29.360 Of course, women are not making these choices in a vacuum. 1.00
00:05:32.580 They're making them at a time when women still take on a disproportionate amount of child care, 1.00
00:05:37.080 earn 85% of what men do on average, and hold just 29% of C-suite roles.
00:05:42.220 For Claudia Timmermans, that imbalance was decisive.
00:05:45.700 She and her husband met at law school and both became lawyers, but his career advanced faster.
00:05:50.580 When Ms. Timmermans was laid off from her job at Ernst & Young in 2023,
00:05:55.120 that disparity factored into her decision to shift careers to make more room for family.
00:05:59.940 She is now an executive coach, flag that, and contractor, which gives her more time with her
00:06:05.020 two children. It was her decision, but she said, quote, it came with a lot of grief because I had
00:06:10.640 worked really hard on that career. Okay, Caro. Thoughts? We've got a couple flags here. What are
00:06:17.640 you thinking? I have a lot of thoughts, but I know that you have a lot to say today, so I'm going to
00:06:20.980 be concise. Okay, so I think first and foremost— No, this is your podcast too. Lean in. Lean in.
00:06:26.060 Say what you want to say.
00:06:27.660 Okay, so the first thing is this piece starts, or the section that I read starts basically with a woman achieving her goals and then realizing that it's not all that they're cracked up to be.
00:06:37.300 I just want to note that that is not necessarily an indication of, like, failed politics as much as we can talk about how the image of being a working woman probably did not meet people's opinions.
00:06:47.340 Like, that's also just human nature.
00:06:49.560 I have been experiencing that to a certain extent this spring, where it's like, I achieved my wildest dreams this spring.
00:06:55.000 And it's terrible.
00:06:56.600 And it's terrible.
00:06:57.660 I certainly am not making the decision to walk away from being a novelist, but it's always more complicated when you experience it than when you're imagining it.
00:07:04.860 And I also want to note, like, it's one thing to achieve your dreams and then decide you want to do something else than to say that this dream isn't actually what I want.
00:07:14.120 So that feels like very interesting framing.
00:07:15.680 I find it very interesting that these women are, quote, pivoting away from the corporate world, but basically using the benefits of what they gained during that time in the corporate world to then make money off of other women with similar anxieties.
00:07:28.540 That feels notable to me. 0.96
00:07:30.380 And then, of course, there's like the financial element where all of these women are walking away because they can. 0.86
00:07:36.120 And that is not at all like the dynamic of being a stay-at-home mother who doesn't have financial options or working because you don't have financial security. 0.91
00:07:43.600 It's just a totally different ball field.
00:07:45.000 Totally. So my first thought reading this is like, huh, this is interesting. Maybe we're having some sort of generous read, anti-capitalist awakening, right? Maybe women are like, you know, I don't need to do wage labor for the man. I'll become an executive coach and go coach executives who are doing wage labor for the man.
00:08:06.360 So naturally, my next question is, where are the men? Where are the stories about the men who reached the heights of corporate success and then decided to redefine ambition? So I Google men leaving careers to find fulfillment elsewhere. And most of the evergreen content that comes back was mostly entrepreneurial content. It was about men leaving their full-time jobs to start companies.
00:08:29.640 But I also got a bunch of recent hits from this May about young and old men leaving the workforce at record rates.
00:08:38.980 And I'm like, huh, interesting.
00:08:41.240 Okay, I stand corrected.
00:08:42.500 Maybe everyone is having like a reckoning with paid labor.
00:08:46.340 So we are going to read a few excerpts from one such piece in the Washington Post.
00:08:52.600 The share of American men in the labor force reached a record low this spring,
00:08:57.060 fueled by baby boomer retirees and young men who are dropping out to study or because they
00:09:01.880 are disabled or sick. The labor market has weakened since early 2025, with most job
00:09:07.320 opportunities concentrated in areas typically dominated by women, including healthcare and
00:09:12.180 private education. At the same time, several male-dominated industries, including manufacturing,
00:09:18.000 transportation, and mining, have shed jobs, leaving a mismatch between typical skill sets
00:09:22.960 and job opportunities for men.
00:09:25.140 The disappearance of men from the workforce
00:09:27.000 has raised red flags for some economists and policymakers.
00:09:30.820 A variety of headwinds, immigration restrictions,
00:09:34.000 aging, and low birth rates,
00:09:35.600 are rapidly narrowing the availability of workers in the U.S.,
00:09:39.080 which could dampen future consumer spending,
00:09:41.700 tax revenue, and economic growth, they say.
00:09:44.620 Men's participation in the workforce
00:09:46.160 has also fueled anxiety among policymakers
00:09:48.500 and politicians across the political spectrum
00:09:51.180 from Vice President J.D. Vance to California Governor Gavin Newsom.
00:09:55.880 The spectrum is like two inches long.
00:09:58.680 Yeah, seriously.
00:10:00.900 Yeah, woke, woke lefty Gavin Newsom.
00:10:04.460 In March, Newsom convened national leaders in Sacramento to tackle rising—
00:10:09.240 Oh, I know what I have to say about this.
00:10:12.080 To tackle rising loneliness, disconnection, and lack of opportunity among boys and young men.
00:10:17.780 Quote, it's much more than a dollars and cents issue.
00:10:20.280 Work is a service to others that helps to complete you, end quote, said Nicholas Eberstadt, the conservative author of Men Without Work.
00:10:28.700 Quote, when you're disconnected from work, when you're disconnected from a family, when you're disconnected from faith, when you're disconnected from your community, people tend to suffer.
00:10:36.480 The Freya India thesis.
00:10:39.060 The broader shift towards a service-based economy has also hurt men, economists say.
00:10:43.720 Between January 2025 and March 2026, the U.S. economy created 369,000 jobs, of which 94% went to women and 6% went to men, an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data by the University of Michigan's Stevenson shows.
00:11:00.280 That's partly because new jobs added to the U.S. economy during that period were in healthcare or private education.
00:11:06.120 Men often shy away from jobs in those industries because of their lower pay and status, economists say.
00:11:11.440 Okay, can I say it before you do?
00:11:13.720 Go ahead. 1.00
00:11:14.720 Society is always failing men and women are always failing society. 0.86
00:11:19.060 What has society done to fail men? 1.00
00:11:21.840 Women are just choosing. 1.00
00:11:23.020 It's just their vibes. 1.00
00:11:24.060 They just feel weird about being ambitious, but men are getting fucked by women. 1.00
00:11:28.440 The conclusion there at the end is fucked by women. 1.00
00:11:31.340 Okay, so we can skip ahead three pages because that was what all this was building up to. 1.00
00:11:35.520 Literally that line. 1.00
00:11:36.640 This is the labor market version of women are always failing society, 1.00
00:11:41.080 but society is always failing men. 1.00
00:11:42.460 So, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm. Interesting. Quite a different framing, I would say. Quite a bit more concern and anxiety about this trend in this half of the population leaving the workforce.
00:11:54.780 And there's also like implied in the article about the ambition is like, there's an implication that women have been given a raw deal and that these women are making smart decisions to go somewhere better. There's no effort or anxiety about like, how can we retain women in the workforce? It's like, good, they're leaving because it's not that great anyways. And with this, it's like, oh, fuck.
00:12:16.460 Totally. So the thing that's important about this is what sort of solution this framing sets us up to look for. And to your point, well, there are no issues on the women leaving front. Women are finding fulfillment elsewhere. They are redefining ambition outside of career, and they are choosing differently. 0.99
00:12:34.200 So we don't actually have to do anything about that. Men, though, they are being alienated from their purpose. Their exit is a, quote, red flag for economists. It is a, quote, source of anxiety for policymakers. And so this is just a contrast in the present rhetoric that I would like everyone to keep in the back of their minds as we walk down memory lane today.
00:12:54.880 I also found this 2026 Glassdoor report.
00:12:58.020 This came from Stephanie O'Connell, whose research we're going to revisit throughout
00:13:02.140 this episode.
00:13:03.060 Her book, The Ambition Penalty, just came out.
00:13:05.460 And I'm going to have you just read a couple of findings from this report, which is supposed
00:13:12.980 to kind of tell everybody, you know, hey, we're checking in on the state of the wage
00:13:17.200 gap and, like, this is what is going on right now.
00:13:20.240 Okay. 1.00
00:13:20.700 Over the course of a woman's career, the gender pay gap doubles. 1.00
00:13:24.840 The gap for workers with zero years of experience is 12 percent.
00:13:28.600 In the first 10 years, a quote within role difference grows where women start earning less than men with the same experience performing similar roles.
00:13:36.660 The wage gap for workers with 30 years of experience is 25 percent. 0.98
00:13:41.360 Right. So if you stay in the workforce, you are going to see that gap widen.
00:13:46.220 The report also finds that women's wages stop growing when they're 35 years old, whereas men's tend to level off around 45. So I think anyone listening to this podcast is probably familiar enough with these statistics that this doesn't really surprise you, but it's still disappointing.
00:14:02.140 And I think what's really fascinating about this is that, as Stephanie points out, what's interesting, again, is this report's framing, that these statistics represent a, quote, redefining of career success for women.
00:14:15.200 So I'm going to have you read what Stephanie wrote about this report.
00:14:18.780 After acknowledging that, quote, the wage gap that widens for women in their 30s is largely structural, end quote, the Glassdoor report goes on to rebrand the systematic failure as a personal recalibration.
00:14:29.260 Yep. Quote, the women thriving after 35 have decoupled their worth from job titles.
00:14:34.880 These aren't stories of women settling for less. They're stories of women choosing differently, 0.99
00:14:39.700 the report says. Convenient. Really fucking convenient. Okay. So now that we've got a good 1.00
00:14:45.580 representative gloss on the present discourse around the state of women and men at work,
00:14:50.440 we're going to hop in those time machines. We're going to go back to 2013,
00:14:53.480 the year that Lean In was published.
00:14:57.300 So, Caro, how would you describe the Lean In or Girlboss era?
00:15:03.080 Like, if an alien came to Earth and said,
00:15:05.420 what was that about?
00:15:06.680 How would you describe it?
00:15:08.640 I would describe the Lean In Girlboss era
00:15:12.160 as the halfway point to Me Too,
00:15:14.860 which I increasingly feel like was actually
00:15:16.640 a very significant cultural moment.
00:15:18.720 It was a period of time in which I feel like
00:15:20.820 we were trying to harness and glossify the idea of women working in the office. And it was my
00:15:28.680 relationship to it is very visual. So like I think of, you know, cultural workspaces like the wing
00:15:33.860 or like elements of being a woman who is very corporate or a woman who really celebrated having
00:15:40.380 a career. It was very packaged into like a consumerist lens for me, at least. It was like
00:15:45.800 about wearing the shirt with the logos and everything became very like pussy pocket-esque 0.94
00:15:51.380 in a sense. Pussy pocket? Oh, not pussy pocket. Pussy hat. Pussy hat. Freudian slip. I love my 0.99
00:15:59.720 pussy pocket. Oh my God. At the HR onboarding, they're just passing around the little silicone. 1.00
00:16:08.120 Okay. So the lean in thing and the girl boss thing are often conflated. We're going to kind
00:16:14.420 to tease them apart today. We're going to treat them as separate but related phenomena. When
00:16:19.020 approximately, Kara, would you say that this cycle or this rise and fall of the girlboss took place?
00:16:25.940 For me, I would say that I feel like the rise I can pinpoint to shortly, maybe shortly after my
00:16:33.100 college graduation, which is probably just an indication of when I became aware of it. So like
00:16:37.060 2015. And I think that the fall was coinciding with 2020, which was like the rise of like this
00:16:43.400 woke politics, women are Karens, like a revisiting of whiteness. And that kind of felt like when 0.96
00:16:50.000 all of that was examined and discarded. Okay, interesting. So my understanding of it going
00:16:56.160 into this was actually almost exactly the same. And the way that I would characterize the popular
00:17:01.440 version of this story and the one that I went into this episode trying to better understand is like,
00:17:06.520 well, we tried that and it didn't work. We tried the girl boss thing. Culturally,
00:17:10.480 it was very popular for a time. There were a couple years there where we, like, tried the
00:17:14.700 whole, hey, it's actually a good thing for women to have ambition and expect parity. And, like,
00:17:19.620 we're still fucked because the whole thing, as we learned when society had its great awakening, 0.96
00:17:25.500 is that, like, well, this was all based on a super flawed premise. After spending the last 0.98
00:17:30.520 few weeks going back through the fossil record of the internet, I would say that the mainstream
00:17:36.080 criticisms of Lean In generally fall into one of three camps. So number one, Sheryl Sandberg is not
00:17:42.640 representing all women. Lean In is an exclusionary book because it does not speak to the low-wage or
00:17:48.660 working-class woman's experience. Number two, Sheryl Sandberg thinks that women are not doing
00:17:54.480 enough and or thinks that women should try harder to have it all and that trying harder is all they 1.00
00:18:01.060 need to do in order to have it all. And number three, Sheryl Sandberg should be changing the 1.00
00:18:06.420 system rather than trying to change the culture around women's ambition. I think this one speaks 0.99
00:18:12.360 to the collectivist versus individualist solutions piece. Lean In is full of individual solutions and
00:18:17.640 what we need are collective solutions. You lived this too. Do you feel like there's like anything
00:18:21.460 I'm missing there or misrepresenting about kind of like the core criticisms of the book?
00:18:26.680 Well, I think a fourth that is probably secondary, but is worth pointing out, is just people thought she was annoying.
00:18:33.700 And, like, that does matter.
00:18:35.260 And they were right. 1.00
00:18:36.140 Yeah, we inherently don't like women. 1.00
00:18:39.040 It's not just the message, it's who's delivering it. 0.99
00:18:41.440 And I think just inherently, she could have been saying anything and people probably would have found her annoying. 0.99
00:18:45.940 She's a little shrill. 0.99
00:18:47.100 Yeah, she's being a little shrill. 1.00
00:18:48.580 Yeah.
00:18:49.340 Okay, so I basically did a media classification exercise and, like, a little sentiment analysis. 0.99
00:18:54.360 because the core question for me amidst this anti-ambition moment was to map how feminism
00:19:00.940 as a political idea became intertwined and sort of synonymous with these strains of
00:19:08.020 career advice geared toward women. So to do this, I did these time-bound searches in the news
00:19:15.440 results for the terms lean-in feminism and girl boss feminism beginning in 2013 and the month
00:19:22.280 before Lean In came out, and then I went year by year through 2020, and I had all these— 0.99
00:19:27.940 You Epstein'd her.
00:19:28.900 Let's not take that out of context. 1.00
00:19:31.540 Katie Epstein's Cheryl. 1.00
00:19:34.860 Clip it. Ship it. 1.00
00:19:36.980 I wanted to find the very first pieces of press about Lean In, because I was curious,
00:19:41.760 at what point in the discussion of this book did it become a referendum on career advice for women 0.99
00:19:48.960 as being inadequately feminist,
00:19:50.920 when that became a disqualifying criticism 0.99
00:19:53.380 in the public conversation.
00:19:55.440 But before I did that, I was like,
00:19:57.060 I need to go reread Lean In
00:19:58.980 because I read it when it came out,
00:20:01.480 when I was, let's see.
00:20:02.820 You read it like in full?
00:20:03.920 Yeah, when I was a junior in college, yeah.
00:20:05.940 Do you remember how you felt about it?
00:20:07.680 Yeah, I thought it was great.
00:20:08.780 I remember like liking it in college
00:20:10.480 and thinking like, oh, this is really helpful.
00:20:12.380 Like I had never considered a lot of this stuff.
00:20:14.520 I needed to reread it now as an adult,
00:20:16.280 with my Mark's goggles on to be like, what was this? And I wanted to spend a lot of time with
00:20:23.560 the introduction specifically, because I felt like that was really where the book tries to
00:20:27.960 set itself up and explain what it's trying to do. And I will say rereading it left me feeling
00:20:34.360 sort of horrified, because the content still strikes me as mostly pretty banal compared to
00:20:39.780 this outsized cultural punching bag that Lean In has become. And because about 30% of my cellular
00:20:47.440 makeup is still just covert hustle bro self-help guzzler. I'm looking at you right now and in your
00:20:53.120 office behind me, there's just a little dollar bill. It's a $2 bill. Oh, it's lucky. It's lucky.
00:20:59.500 Yeah, it's lucky money. It's better. It's better. But I have read a lot of business books. I've read
00:21:05.920 dozens of self-help business books. And technically, I guess you could say I also
00:21:09.320 wrote one. And the reality about this field is that the majority of business books are written
00:21:14.600 by men and they have implicitly male audiences. The same has been true historically of books about
00:21:19.420 money, but less so today. And I'm curious, Kara, do you want to guess the main difference between
00:21:25.040 business books, books about career, books about time management, books about success
00:21:29.640 written by men versus those written by women? I actually have no clue.
00:21:33.500 So the books written by men almost never talk about family or relationship dynamics. They don't
00:21:41.160 talk about having children or how having children is going to impact whatever it is you want to
00:21:44.800 achieve. They rarely address how like relationship dynamics, caretaking, responsibilities, other like
00:21:51.060 personal life things are going to impact your time, energy, and desire. How the support that
00:21:55.560 you do or do not have from your partner may influence what you're able to do. They really
00:22:00.100 don't address your gender or any other parts of your identity at all or how that might influence
00:22:05.800 your path to success because men are people and women are women and god help you if you don't
00:22:11.580 fit cleanly into either one of those categories i think it really speaks to something that i think
00:22:16.280 you highlighted with those two articles at the beginning that like ambition and the desire to
00:22:21.940 work are taken as genetically embedded within men and so i think the thing the author would say
00:22:27.820 would be like, well, whether you have a child or not is irrelevant. Of course, you're going to want
00:22:32.040 to work. Yeah. There was a video that Paige Turner made a couple years ago. Her Instagram
00:22:37.480 handle, she is a Paige Turner. And it went viral and like it got onto the wrong side of the
00:22:42.520 internet and people were really mad about it because she basically was like, yeah, I don't
00:22:45.580 read books about entrepreneurship or business written by men because I have four kids. And
00:22:51.500 like anyone whose advice is like you need to get up really early and then do a six hour sprint
00:22:56.400 is like not living in the same reality that I am. But a lot of these men are also fathers.
00:23:01.860 So it's not that they don't have kids. It's that the kids are not their problem. And it's assumed
00:23:07.740 that if you are a man reading one of these books, that they're not going to be your problem either.
00:23:11.600 That's just kind of like the default posture that a lot of these books take. So much so that when I
00:23:17.740 read Sandberg's book as a college student, I was like, oh, I didn't really think about the fact
00:23:22.680 that this was going to make a difference because Lean In does talk about family and relationship
00:23:27.360 dynamics. So the text of Lean In opens with a story about how when Sandberg was pregnant
00:23:33.480 and working at Google, she learned that Yahoo employees had reserved pregnancy parking.
00:23:39.620 And so she went and she essentially demanded the same of the Google co-founders for pregnant 0.53
00:23:43.600 Google employees and said, we need to do this for our pregnant employees too.
00:23:47.080 Now, as the opening anecdote of the book, this actually surprised me because in my memory of
00:23:51.260 the book. It was all about looking out for yourself, how to advance your career. And this
00:23:56.620 opening anecdote, which if you're writing a book, is kind of supposed to contain the nugget or the
00:24:02.040 thesis in miniature. This is not really a story about looking out only for your own career. We
00:24:08.360 can debate how useful this example really is. If the workplace is the appropriate location to be
00:24:13.480 demanding change, we can debate whether Sandberg should have known to advocate for parking 0.97
00:24:17.360 accommodations for pregnant people before she was pregnant herself. But the point is that it is an
00:24:21.820 opening anecdote that really supports Sandberg's entire theory of change, which is that gender
00:24:27.000 parity and more diverse representation in leadership roles will create better outcomes
00:24:32.660 for everybody. So we're going to spend more time with that theory of change today. I want to talk
00:24:36.840 about it later, but now I'm going to have you read another section from the introduction that
00:24:42.440 lays this thesis out plainly. I am also acutely aware that the vast majority of women are 1.00
00:24:48.920 struggling to make ends meet and take care of their families. Parts of this book will be most
00:24:53.360 relevant to women fortunate enough to have choices about how much and when and where to work.
00:24:58.220 Other parts apply to situations that women face in every workplace, within every community,
00:25:02.840 and in every home. If we can succeed in adding more female voices at the highest levels,
00:25:07.440 we will expand opportunities and extend fair treatment to all.
00:25:11.640 Some, I can't believe you're going to make me like sympathetic to Sheryl Sandberg.
00:25:14.940 This is like, thank God my book tour is ending because half my jokes are about her.
00:25:18.820 So I would really have to revamp my entire standup. 0.94
00:25:21.140 Same, I was on one stop of your book tour and I talked shit about Sheryl Sandberg on stage. 0.91
00:25:26.020 I know, this is a reckoning, okay? 0.97
00:25:27.800 Oh my God.
00:25:28.800 Oh, I'm going to have to develop hobbies to learn new things, to make new jokes.
00:25:32.500 Okay.
00:25:32.740 Okay. Some, especially other women in business, have cautioned me about speaking publicly about
00:25:37.460 these issues. When I have spoken out anyway, several of my comments have upset people of
00:25:42.240 both genders. I know some believe that by focusing on what women can change themselves,
00:25:47.200 pressing them to lean in, it seems like I am letting our institutions off the hook.
00:25:51.460 Or even worse, they accuse me of blaming the victim. Far from blaming the victim,
00:25:55.820 I believe that female leaders are the key to the solution. Some critics will also point out that
00:26:00.860 it is much easier for me to lean in since my financial resources allow me to afford any help
00:26:05.720 I need. My intention is to offer advice that would have been useful to me long before I had heard of
00:26:11.160 Google or Facebook and that will resonate with women in a broad range of circumstances.
00:26:15.300 I have heard these criticisms in the past and I know that I will hear them and others in the
00:26:19.500 future. My hope is that my message will be judged on its merits. We can't avoid the conversation.
00:26:25.320 This issue transcends all of us. The time is long overdue to encourage more women to dream the
00:26:30.540 possible dream and encourage more men to support women in the workforce and in the home tough
00:26:37.460 can i ask you a question sure so you have also written a book about personal finance rich girl
00:26:44.780 nation shout out and i think that it's phenomenal and i i know that you also make several basically
00:26:52.000 caveats talking about this and being like some of my recommendations or some of these chapters
00:26:55.940 are more relevant to when you have a higher net worth some are found more foundational and i know
00:27:00.380 that you have mentioned to me in the past like receiving criticism that it's like not for all
00:27:05.360 women and I'm curious how this felt reading that and if you have any like what your experience of
00:27:10.380 receiving that criticism has been like long before you had your Sheryl Sandberg awakening
00:27:15.080 my Sheryl Sandberg awakening we need to get bumper stickers that say awaken comma Sheryl Sandberg
00:27:22.660 and it's like her as like a kraken.
00:27:25.240 With like the glowing orb eyes.
00:27:28.220 Awaken Sheryl Sandberg.
00:27:30.140 And it's like the comma is so necessary
00:27:32.240 because it's like, are you awakening Sheryl Sandberg
00:27:34.500 or are we commanding Sheryl Sandberg to awaken?
00:27:37.660 It's, you know, up to debate. 0.96
00:27:39.480 Literature, this is high art.
00:27:41.200 I think the reality is that when you look at the data
00:27:43.300 and you look at some of the most unfortunate situations
00:27:47.820 that women, especially in midlife and later life,
00:27:50.840 find themselves in because of the financial gaps between women and men and women being more likely
00:27:58.560 to be in poverty after a divorce and all of these things. All of that is true, and the advice is 1.00
00:28:03.460 very valid and very necessary, but it does not work for people who simply just don't have enough
00:28:09.180 income coming in. And short of being like, and here's a chapter on how you can try to negotiate,
00:28:15.720 and here's a chapter on how you can earn more and how you can think about accessing more income,
00:28:20.320 Like, there aren't individual solutions to these things. And so I think, for me, this has been a central tension in my life for a long time, which is how to balance the systemic with the individual. How do we continue to make things better for people in the here and now and give them tools that might help them immediately while also focusing on this bigger picture?
00:28:42.540 And I think what's interesting about reading Lean In is this book probably would have been
00:28:47.020 40% shorter had she taken out all the caveats. This type of language is in every chapter.
00:28:54.680 She is constantly disclaiming. But there was another part of Lean In that I'd completely
00:28:59.480 forgotten about. She has a chapter about how men in heterosexual relationships need to step up and
00:29:06.760 be equal partners. And we're going to spend more time dissecting that one later too. But for now,
00:29:11.480 I just want to give you a sense for what's in it.
00:29:13.840 So if you'll please read this from a chapter called
00:29:16.360 Make Your Partner a Real Partner.
00:29:20.040 Derek Thompson clocking.
00:29:21.520 I was just about to make that joke.
00:29:23.660 I was just about to make that joke. 0.62
00:29:25.400 He's like, we're doing an hour and 10 minutes a day now, ladies.
00:29:28.220 Katie, Katie, Katie, Katie, Katie, Katie.
00:29:30.980 The amount of times that I have weighed 0.99
00:29:33.920 doing an entire fucking podcast episode 0.99
00:29:38.020 about that one statistic, abundance. 0.98
00:29:41.480 Okay, while men are taking on more household responsibilities, this increase is happening very slowly, and we are still far from parity.
00:29:49.480 Remember, this is 2013, so this is still 13 years ago.
00:29:52.700 Yep. Perhaps unsurprisingly, same-sex couples divided household tasks much more evenly. 0.86
00:29:59.460 Public policy reinforces this gender bias.
00:30:02.280 The U.S. Census Bureau considers mothers, quote, the designated parent, even when both parents are present in the home.
00:30:08.740 When mothers care for their children, it's parenting.
00:30:11.260 But when fathers care for their children, the government deems it a child care arrangement. 0.78
00:30:16.040 Wow, that's incredible.
00:30:18.300 And then she, like, tells this anecdote about some friends of hers where one day the mom was at home to pack the kids' lunches and the dad had to do it.
00:30:26.780 And he, like, didn't know how to pack a lunch.
00:30:28.680 And so he just, like, put a bunch of junk food in the lunchbox.
00:30:31.200 and how, like, the couple would regale this story to people
00:30:34.900 and everyone would, like, think it was really funny and charming
00:30:37.460 that, like, the dad just, like, put a bunch of Oreos and Cheez-Its in the lunchbox
00:30:41.220 and that was it.
00:30:42.000 And she points out that, like, yeah, roles reversed.
00:30:45.220 That story would not be cute and charming.
00:30:46.980 People would be calling child services.
00:30:48.460 They'd be like, what's wrong with you as a mother 1.00
00:30:50.560 that you don't know how to feed your kid? 0.68
00:30:52.720 And then she writes this.
00:30:55.120 There may be an evolutionary basis for one parent knowing better 0.96
00:30:58.720 what to put in a child's lunch. 0.97
00:31:00.380 women who breastfeed are arguably baby's first lunchbox 1.00
00:31:08.920 call me a lunchbox everyone but if mothers are more naturally inclined towards nurturing 0.77
00:31:15.160 fathers can match that skill with knowledge and effort okay wow i'm sentence by sentence 0.96
00:31:20.440 on a roller coaster ride with cheryl whiplash dude i know if women want to succeed more at work 0.91
00:31:26.140 and if men want to succeed more at home,
00:31:28.260 these expectations have to be challenged.
00:31:30.560 As Gloria Steinem once observed,
00:31:32.460 it's not about biology, but about consciousness.
00:31:34.680 We overcome biology with consciousness in other areas.
00:31:37.420 It kind of has the same mouthfeel to me as fair play,
00:31:40.380 where it's like very heteronormative Gen X
00:31:43.320 and kind of like the elbow in the ribs, 1.00
00:31:45.480 like we all know your husband's an idiot, 1.00
00:31:47.320 but we're going to make him step up, you know? 1.00
00:31:50.080 And it's true, I think,
00:31:51.320 that her acknowledgement of the struggles
00:31:52.980 for whom, you know, the book will not apply,
00:31:55.620 the women that are not going to be benefiting from advice from someone who's a Google executive,
00:32:00.520 like, pretty cursory. But they aren't unacknowledged. You cannot read this book in
00:32:05.580 good faith and walk away being like, wow, she thinks all women aren't trying hard enough.
00:32:10.220 Something I'm thinking about that I can kind of tell as she's writing this is that
00:32:13.720 I wonder how much sleep she lost thinking about who she was positioning this book for. Because
00:32:20.700 I think, like, for example, you and I run this podcast kind of with the expectation, like, if
00:32:26.020 you know, you know. You know, we're not always trying to broadly make an argument about any
00:32:30.180 topic to someone who has not done some deconstructing of their own. Like, we're pretty
00:32:34.600 comfortable jumping into it with certain assumptions and expectations about who would
00:32:38.560 find this podcast useful. And that's the fun of it, is that we don't feel like we're trying to
00:32:42.680 broadcast this to 50 million people. That's a very different challenge. That's an Ezra Klein
00:32:46.820 challenge, and he has different challenges than we do rhetorically. And so I'm thinking about this
00:32:51.640 too, is like, she wrote this book wanting it to be successful, which is not a bad thing. And so
00:32:56.640 when you're positioning a book for millions of people to like, and when you're writing a book
00:33:01.580 with the expectation that millions of people like it, you must be caveating at all times,
00:33:06.820 because you're trying to get so many different people in. Like, she's trying to pull in women
00:33:11.540 who might never have read a book about feminism before. 0.67
00:33:15.140 And that is a sincere challenge. 1.00
00:33:16.760 And I can see her trying to thread that needle
00:33:19.800 almost in every sentence.
00:33:21.800 That's a really interesting point.
00:33:23.600 We are going to talk a little bit
00:33:24.700 about Bell Hooks's review of Lean In.
00:33:26.680 It was obviously not favorable.
00:33:28.480 And one of the critiques that Bell Hooks makes is like,
00:33:31.600 yeah, she's not saying anything new.
00:33:33.440 She's not developing feminist theory. 0.98
00:33:35.300 There's nothing new here. 1.00
00:33:36.320 She's just repeating what feminists decades ago 1.00
00:33:39.700 could have told you. 1.00
00:33:40.640 and I actually think that in this specific case like a book like Lean In is kind of supposed to 1.00
00:33:48.040 be an entry point like yeah this isn't a book that you're gonna pick up if you are a feminist 1.00
00:33:51.980 scholar because it isn't gonna tell you anything new it's like call her daddy for pantsuits 0.97
00:33:55.820 call her mommy wait side note side note side note have you seen um the drama of conservatives
00:34:02.800 writing op-eds about Alex Cooper being pregnant being like she lied to you she lied to you because 0.96
00:34:09.840 now she's having a family. And then other conservatives being like, who cares if she
00:34:14.560 lied? She's procreating. We should welcome her with open arms. And other conservatives are like, 1.00
00:34:18.940 no, kill the witch, burn her. This is why I don't get on the internet anymore, 0.99
00:34:22.480 except to research Sheryl Sandberg. And except to check on yesteryear
00:34:26.440 discourse so that I don't have to. Yeah, literally.
00:34:29.340 Katie just slowly upstiving her drone strike list. 1.00
00:34:34.860 We're going to need a bigger boat. I'm just tracking IP addresses in my free time.
00:34:39.840 I'm like, all right, Kansas City, Missouri, we've got three headed your way. No, I'm just kidding.
00:34:45.940 One thing that I want to be very clear about today is like, we can disagree with the actual
00:34:50.640 content of this book, and we're going to talk about some points of disagreement. But I think
00:34:55.560 what you're going to notice and what I am more interested in for the subject matter of this
00:34:59.280 episode is that the content in this book is more often than not misrepresented in the mainstream
00:35:06.880 conversation about the book. The conversation around the book very often is not really addressing
00:35:13.260 anything that's in the book. So finally, Cheryl lays out this whole chicken or egg argument,
00:35:19.340 okay, in the introduction. She basically says, the egg is the external and the institutional
00:35:24.860 barriers that women face. This is, I think, what today we would call the systemic things. 0.78
00:35:30.140 She says the chicken is the internal barriers, and these internal barriers are what she wants
00:35:35.500 to focus on. She says these are the products of how basically girls and women are socialized,
00:35:40.020 how they are socialized differently from boys, and how that treatment and how that socialization
00:35:46.280 changes how they behave and what they expect from the world around them. And she says,
00:35:52.180 I support everyone working on the egg, and this book is about the chicken.
00:35:56.860 So I told you that I did a content analysis of seven years of material. The funny thing is that
00:36:03.100 I actually think after doing that, the best way to understand what happened here is to zoom way in
00:36:09.680 and take a microscope to February 2013. So the month before Lean In comes out and literally go
00:36:17.720 day by day. Hell yeah. So as a reminder, the popular narrative told about Lean In and the
00:36:24.800 girl boss era more broadly, the impression that I had going into doing this is that it was virtually
00:36:29.940 universally embraced. It was celebrated for a while, maybe a couple years, you know,
00:36:34.160 the tides turn, we see the error in our judgment, and I will spoil the lead up front and say I was
00:36:39.280 actually not able to validate that theory of the case with a time-bound review of the media
00:36:44.320 coverage that evolved around this book. So we're going to begin our journey with the very first
00:36:48.240 piece of lean-in press that I could find on February 22nd. Time and context here, the book
00:36:53.960 will not be published for a few more weeks.
00:36:56.620 The first thing we get is a 1,500-word story
00:37:00.020 on the front page of the New York Times by Jodi Kantor.
00:37:04.400 So rather than reading the entire piece,
00:37:07.040 we're going to read a description of this story
00:37:09.000 that kind of summarizes it from an article in The New Yorker
00:37:12.200 that came a little bit later. 0.64
00:37:14.540 Wasn't Jodi Kantor one of the women who brought down Harvey Weinstein?
00:37:18.120 I know this not because I'm a journalist buff,
00:37:20.600 but because I care deeply about Carey Mulligan's career.
00:37:23.960 and she did the movie She Said, and so I learned more about it after that.
00:37:29.480 Incredible. Okay, so Jodi Kantor is someone who breaks the Me Too story, and now I'm going to
00:37:36.860 have you read this description. This is not Jodi Kantor writing. This is a New Yorker piece
00:37:41.940 summarizing this front page story. Okay. Kantor's piece, which detailed
00:37:47.960 Sandberg's plan in a tone of subtle disdain, was notable less for what it did say than what it
00:37:53.220 didn't. Although there were plenty of skeptics quoted in the piece, the business consultant
00:37:58.000 Aviva Wittenberg-Cox accused Sandberg of, quote, blaming other women for not trying hard enough,
00:38:03.220 for example. Sandberg herself had not participated in the story. And though Cantor disapprovingly
00:38:09.160 quoted from guidelines for the leonin circles that she acquired her from a project advisor,
00:38:13.500 the circles themselves hadn't even begun. The piece also focused on a disagreement,
00:38:17.400 which it portrayed as a kind of catfight, between Sandberg and her, quote, chief critic,
00:38:21.780 Anne-Marie Slaughter, the Princeton academic and former State Department official who wrote a
00:38:26.340 wave-making cover story in The Atlantic last August announcing that women could not, quote,
00:38:30.460 have it all, and thinks that Sandberg holds women to an unfairly high standard.
00:38:35.800 Okay. So then the very next day, we get another piece in The Times called
00:38:39.900 Pom Pom Girl for Feminism. And this was the first kind of, I would say, like, truly opinion piece
00:38:46.200 about Lean In. Maureen Dowd wrote it, and here is an excerpt if you will please read.
00:38:53.080 One of her friends from her Harvard days told Vogue that the brainy, beautiful, charming, 0.99
00:38:57.700 stylish, happily married 43-year-old mother of two, one of the world's richest self-made women,
00:39:03.040 has, quote, an infectious insistence. She would have to, having founded Harvard's aerobics program 1.00
00:39:08.560 in the 80s wearing blue eyeshadow and leg warmers. Okay, go off. Is this Cheryl who did that? 0.97
00:39:13.220 Yeah, apparently.
00:39:14.560 Oh, you're going to make me love her. 1.00
00:39:16.360 Now that she has domesticated the Facebook frat house, 1.00
00:39:19.080 Sandberg wants to be, quote, the pom-pom girl for feminism, as she calls it. 1.00
00:39:22.660 She has a grandiose plan to become the PowerPoint pied piper in Prada ankle boots, 1.00
00:39:28.360 reigniting the woman's revolution. 0.85
00:39:30.540 Betty Friedan for the digital age. 1.00
00:39:32.640 She wants women to stop limiting and sabotaging themselves. 1.00
00:39:36.220 The petite corporate star is larger than life, 1.00
00:39:38.700 and a normal book tour for Lean In,
00:39:40.480 which she describes as a sort of feminist manifesto 0.93
00:39:43.160 mixed with career advice just won't do. So the title of this piece,
00:39:48.100 Pom Pom Girl for Feminism, Dowd attributes that quote to Sandberg, like that she called herself 0.99
00:39:55.220 that. And I was like, huh, I would like to see the original context for that quote. Like it just
00:40:01.060 kind of struck me strangely. Having read the book and like understanding the tone, I couldn't find
00:40:06.960 any proof of her calling herself this, though I did find a piece in Salon that contextualized that
00:40:12.240 comment specifically as a quote, joke in belated response to a sexist comment from a guy named
00:40:19.080 Tip O'Neill. So it sounds like it was part of like an off-color exchange. This opinion piece
00:40:25.000 like really clearly sets the tone for what follows. There are so many feminized ideas here
00:40:31.880 that she domesticated the frat house of Facebook. Comments about her being really petite and really 1.00
00:40:37.980 beautiful. This line about leg warmers and blue eyeshadow. There is a sense of kind of minimization
00:40:43.780 happening here that isn't really contending with any of the arguments that are being made in any
00:40:48.140 real seriousness. Like the line about Prada ankle booties I thought was interesting because there's
00:40:52.520 not a single mention of footwear in the entire book, which I only clocked because I do talk
00:40:57.060 about how much I love designer shoes in my book. Sheryl Sandberg doesn't. She doesn't talk about
00:41:02.240 that. And then I guess Maureen wrote another column about Sandberg later that quoted a line
00:41:07.640 from another negative review that Sandberg just thinks all women should pull themselves up by 0.95
00:41:12.400 their Louboutin straps. There's this kind of like, ooh, big career woman must love designer
00:41:17.580 shoe thing happening here that I just struck me as interesting considering the book was not even
00:41:22.260 out yet. And like, I was expecting this early coverage to be very favorable. And again,
00:41:27.580 maybe unsurprisingly, like, this is not an anti-capitalist critique of Sandberg's thesis
00:41:33.740 for the benefit of the downtrodden working class.
00:41:36.220 This is not a deconstruction of the logic
00:41:38.020 of the power structures in corporate America.
00:41:40.100 It is really just ridiculing Sandberg
00:41:42.380 and the entire premise of a business book 0.99
00:41:44.600 written by a basically like rapacious female capitalist. 1.00
00:41:48.680 I will also add, 0.55
00:41:49.640 it's not as if all of these institutions
00:41:51.960 are incredibly welcoming to anti-capitalist critiques.
00:41:56.300 That's the kind of silly thing is like,
00:41:57.920 okay, fine, like you hate lean in 0.99
00:42:00.100 because you're a communist.
00:42:01.320 The New York Times does not take seriously any claims that we should be revamping the system.
00:42:08.460 The New York Times is not necessarily pushing for any sort of universalized child care options.
00:42:13.740 And so it's like, would you not?
00:42:15.480 So nothing works then. 1.00
00:42:16.720 So women can't suggest anything. 1.00
00:42:19.180 Precisely. 0.77
00:42:20.100 That is kind of the feeling I was left with is like you kind of have to consider the source in a lot of these places.
00:42:26.260 My read on a critique of Lean In in Jacobin is going to be very different.
00:42:31.020 than a critique of Lean In and the Wall Street Journal. I'm like, the motivations are feeling
00:42:36.300 incredibly different. So, February 25th, two days later, we get Lean In, Trickle Down,
00:42:43.020 The False Promise of Sheryl Sandberg's Theory of Change by Bryce Covert in Forbes. I will also
00:42:48.920 note Bryce Covert as a woman, pretty much only women covered this book. There was maybe one 1.00
00:42:54.340 male journalist that deigned to write about Lean In. I looked at I don't know how many dozens of
00:42:59.480 articles. Vast, vast, vast majority of coverage comes from women. I actually don't think I've 1.00
00:43:05.400 gotten a male reviewer yet for yesteryear. I was going to say, didn't you say that like all
00:43:08.720 the trad wife stuff when you were researching, like only women write about trad wives too? 1.00
00:43:12.800 All the trad wife stuff is covered by women. And I will say I've been interviewed on the road. I've
00:43:17.820 been interviewed by men, by booksellers, male booksellers. But it is notable. Like men don't
00:43:23.960 review women's shit. Or maybe they aren't assigned. I don't know how it works. 1.00
00:43:27.500 Mm-hmm. So, two days later, we get what is, in my mind, the fairest piece of criticism in the
00:43:34.300 early wave that really engages with the book based on its actual ideas. I was kind of surprised to
00:43:38.660 see a review like this in Forbes, being that Forbes is, like, a very obviously, like, pro-ladder
00:43:44.580 climbing publication just kind of, like, by its very nature. So, Covert writes in Forbes, and she
00:43:50.400 criticizes this theory of change specifically, or the idea in Lean In that having more women in 0.96
00:43:55.960 positions of power and influence will improve conditions for women writ large. So I'm going to
00:44:01.160 have you read from this one. We just shouldn't kid ourselves that putting more women at the top 1.00
00:44:07.100 solves structural barriers women face in the economy, particularly toward the bottom rungs. 1.00
00:44:11.260 Okay, flag that. The most extreme examples of how badly that can go wrong are probably Sarah 1.00
00:44:16.340 Kalin and Michelle Bachman. Okay, two women who have been in powerful positions but have no
00:44:21.800 interest in furthering opportunities for women at the bottom, or in some cases, anywhere on the 1.00
00:44:26.100 ladder. But even progressive feminist women who want to make things better for all probably can't 1.00
00:44:30.880 pull that off. There are good reasons to push women to be more ambitious and aggressive. 1.00
00:44:35.480 They just don't include transforming working life for all women. 0.92
00:44:40.200 Okay. So this feels really tricky to me. Like, I sat here and stared at this paragraph for like
00:44:45.360 30 minutes. Because on the one hand, I agree with Covert that a woman is just as capable
00:44:50.440 of tyranny. 1.00
00:44:51.720 Bounding belief of this podcast.
00:44:53.400 Right. 1.00
00:44:53.740 The premise of Let Women Be Awful 0.94
00:44:56.020 is that women are not more morally upstanding than men 0.77
00:44:59.680 just by nature of their gender. 0.98
00:45:01.860 Right.
00:45:02.220 And there's often, as we know, 1.00
00:45:03.960 more solidarity between rich white women
00:45:06.420 and rich white men,
00:45:07.660 like class or race-based solidarity, 0.99
00:45:09.580 than between a rich white woman 1.00
00:45:10.980 and a poor Latina woman. 1.00
00:45:13.080 This is kind of basic feminist theory 1.00
00:45:15.240 that these factors intersect with one another. 1.00
00:45:17.540 Gender alone does not mean
00:45:18.940 that you're going to see your interests as being connected or aligned with another person
00:45:22.500 because this is not a monolithic group.
00:45:24.480 And I agree with Covert that representation alone does not solve structural issues. 1.00
00:45:29.380 Female CEO of Raytheon does not dismantle the military-industrial complex. 0.73
00:45:34.200 It is an incredible t-shirt opportunity, female CEO of Raytheon. 0.99
00:45:39.400 Merch alert.
00:45:41.420 So I think this is a really slippery point that has to be argued very precisely
00:45:47.260 and very carefully because I see what she is saying. And in the America that we live in,
00:45:54.220 most often saying this just functions to keep things exactly as they are. And I think that
00:45:59.820 that is the delineation that I'm kind of trying to wedge open today, which is the way that these
00:46:05.180 ideas and this pushback has been metabolized and where that has gotten us. Because if we really
00:46:10.120 don't think it matters, if we do not think that getting, quote, progressive feminists into 1.00
00:46:14.680 positions of power within institutions would make a difference. What is the point of efforts for 1.00
00:46:21.140 equal representation in positions of leadership if who is in leadership doesn't matter? If that
00:46:26.100 doesn't matter, why do we care that white men run everything? Yeah, that's a great point. 1.00
00:46:31.140 I don't think the message that we have broadly internalized as a society from, like, the years
00:46:35.900 of girlboss backlash has been, oh, well, we've seen the error in our ways, and, like, we actually
00:46:41.620 need flat, democratically led, cooperatively owned organizations with living wages for all 0.99
00:46:47.800 into functioning social safety net as much as it's been to say women are redefining ambition 0.95
00:46:53.840 and like leaving their careers and like men need to get their asses back to work. 0.99
00:46:57.780 Okay. Yeah. This actually, I was talking to my husband about this yesterday. We were talking 0.96
00:47:01.720 about an episode I'm working on for about reality TV. I'm working on a reality TV episode for us to
00:47:06.340 record next. And I was talking about like the summer house stuff. And I was also talking about
00:47:10.140 a New Yorker article about Strangers by Belle Burden that you and I have been discussing on
00:47:14.040 the sidelines. And the New Yorker article in particular says outright that Belle Burden was
00:47:18.820 much more financially comfortable than she claims in her bestselling memoir.
00:47:22.720 You know, her finances are a foundational point. And Riley was kind of arguing like, well,
00:47:26.920 if this is a conversation about class, like we should be having these conversations. And what
00:47:31.140 I was like struggling to get out, but finally got to my end point of what made me uncomfortable
00:47:35.680 about this article, this New Yorker article,
00:47:38.260 is that the end argument of this article
00:47:40.900 is not for us to think more about class.
00:47:43.740 The end article is for us to decide 1.00
00:47:45.700 whether or not this woman is a liar. 0.98
00:47:47.740 That is the question that you are asked to think
00:47:50.360 at the end of that article.
00:47:51.740 And we very often, this is something that I feel like
00:47:54.100 I talk about a lot in this podcast,
00:47:55.400 that we will claim we are making progressive arguments,
00:47:58.440 but really, at the end of the day,
00:48:00.780 our conversation is to get you, 1.00
00:48:02.480 well, is this woman a liar or a bitch 1.00
00:48:04.720 or a shitty person or not make your decision based off of this argument that is supposedly 1.00
00:48:08.960 progressive. And that's what it feels like this is doing. These arguments aren't asking us to 0.99
00:48:13.120 think clearly about class and structure and whatever. They're asking us to think,
00:48:16.700 is Sheryl Sandberg a piece of shit or not? Yeah, it's the Scooby-Doo villain where you 1.00
00:48:20.880 rip off the mask and it's like, surprise, it's misogyny. Surprise, it's a woman. 1.00
00:48:26.420 Okay, so I've kind of alluded a couple times now to this theory of change that like,
00:48:30.300 the opening anecdote of the book, I can see really clearly kind of that this is what she's
00:48:33.640 trying to get at. Then she states the thesis. Covert is kind of critiquing this theory of
00:48:38.520 change and saying, well, more progressive feminists in leadership actually doesn't 1.00
00:48:41.840 get us where we need to go. The research on this theory of change is actually sort of interesting.
00:48:47.340 So this comes from O'Connell's book. The overwhelming majority of leadership in
00:48:52.600 workplaces are still men. They tend to work with and promote other men. So just for some
00:48:57.860 representative statistics, 29% of the U.S. population is white men. 29%. 56% of C-suite
00:49:06.680 executives are white men. Around 19% of the population are men of color, and around 12%
00:49:13.740 of C-suite executives are men of color. So a 2023 paper from Harvard Business School called
00:49:20.280 The Old Boys Club, Schmoozing and the Gender Gap, studied this kind of male networking effect
00:49:26.340 in a large financial institution in Southeast Asia, and it found that the social effects
00:49:32.580 of men in leadership seeming to favor other men for leadership roles accounted for one-third
00:49:39.040 of the wage gap in that firm. And so O'Connell takes you through a few different examples in
00:49:44.100 her book across different countries and different places where they've studied this and basically
00:49:48.420 concludes that actually reaching a critical mass of women in leadership in a given organization 0.90
00:49:54.260 and not just a token few, like, okay, we have the one lady on the board and she's the woman and
00:49:59.960 check the box, actually does correlate to smaller gender wage gaps, in some cases eliminating it 1.00
00:50:06.260 entirely. So I think there are a few reasons for this. The first is maybe obvious, and it's that
00:50:10.940 since wage gaps are usually downstream of women's careers flatlining earlier, if you study the wage
00:50:18.020 gap in an organization with that typical spread of nearly 70% men at the top, the majority of the
00:50:24.580 highest earners will be men. So by the very fact of having more women in those leadership roles,
00:50:28.760 earning those higher incomes, yeah, you're going to see a smaller intra-firm gap. But the second 0.99
00:50:33.680 is the more cultural explanation, which is the one that I think Sandberg is trying to argue for.
00:50:38.680 And I found a good articulation of this idea in Rebecca Traister's 2010 book, Big Girls Don't
00:50:43.580 cry. She basically says that because there are so few examples of, quote, powerful women, 1.00
00:50:49.740 we tend to, quote, hold those few women who are powerful up to terrifically high and often 0.50
00:50:55.940 gender essentialist standards, and that we, quote, still expect our women leaders to be
00:51:00.600 more thoughtful, kinder, more collaborative, more eager to listen, more nurturing than their male
00:51:07.800 peers. We expect women to act like mothers even when they're in the workplace. 0.94
00:51:11.600 to domesticate the Facebook frat house, as Maureen Dowd said. So you can see how parody 1.00
00:51:17.020 would lessen that tendency to spotlight the one or two people who function like a stand-in for
00:51:22.780 the entire marginalized group. I think this works for, this is true of like any group that is not
00:51:27.800 the default dominant. I think this would be true across like race and other gender and sexual
00:51:31.760 identities as well. But like, if you're the only person who represents that group in a leadership
00:51:36.320 role, you are being scrutinized more. So anyway, I think that that theory of change is interesting
00:51:42.840 because in some ways, I think Covert's critique is true. And in other ways, I think the data within
00:51:49.160 organizations is actually a little more complicated than that. It's a little more complicated than
00:51:53.680 just saying, no, having a bunch of this group in leadership doesn't change anything. So honestly,
00:51:59.660 though, just I'm going to give major points to Bryce Covert for writing a review that engages
00:52:04.060 with the material on its merits argues against the thesis specifically.
00:52:08.620 Yeah, it's interesting because one of the theories I had going into this is
00:52:12.600 usually the book tour of a big book campaign like this or the marketing copy will dumb down the
00:52:18.960 book or simplify it and then often mislead all of the nuance that's within the book. And so my
00:52:24.140 theory was going to be that it got good reviews, but after the book came out and like maybe Sheryl 0.84
00:52:29.200 Sandberg was doing interviews with Oprah, maybe then she had to simplify her argument. And it's
00:52:33.360 fair too, because then it gets clipped and that's what people think about when they associate with
00:52:36.340 Lean In. It's like the tragic outcome of like simplifying a book like this, but it sounds like
00:52:40.480 people were misunderstanding it from the jump. That was the impression that I got from reading
00:52:45.160 all the coverage of it. I did find positive stuff too. We're going to talk about some of the positive
00:52:49.200 as well that came out, but I really wanted to read reviews that were critiquing it on those
00:52:54.380 grounds because I thought it was an interesting lens to look at given where we got now. Okay,
00:53:00.680 so that same day, February 25th, we get Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In Campaign Holds Little for Most
00:53:06.620 Women by Melissa Gera Grant, who is actually a Jacobin editor, but writing in the Washington
00:53:11.740 Post. This one is interesting because from my read, she admits that she has not read the book,
00:53:18.780 which I'm just like, that actually happened a surprising amount where a lot of people who were
00:53:23.360 weighing in never read it. I was like, am I misunderstanding or misreading this? And I went
00:53:29.380 back and found another piece from that time period in the New Yorker, which I know has like a famously
00:53:34.620 rigorous fact-checking organization where they called out all the people that reviewed it
00:53:40.060 without reading it. Oh, that's so gross. And so I was like, okay, I'm pretty sure this is 0.65
00:53:44.320 real and odd. Like, this is anomalous. Okay, so this is from the Washington Post.
00:53:50.320 It seems that the consciousness raised and solutions offered in Lean in Circles.
00:53:54.460 Okay, so there's a lot of fixation on these Lean in Circles.
00:53:56.700 Yeah, it was basically like, I don't want to call it a book club, but from my understanding of it, it was like they were trying to institute programs within workplaces called lean-in circles where the women in the workplace would get together and like talk about work and like their careers together. 0.51
00:54:14.340 Okay, flag that, because that feels like early baby wing.
00:54:17.640 It seems that the consciousness raised and solutions offered in lean-in circles will be isolated to actions individual women can take to support their own ambitions and desires, 0.64
00:54:26.500 rather than wondering about the ambitions and desires of, say, the women who keep house for the women spending their time leaning in. 0.59
00:54:34.660 Okay, there's simply no way for women to lean in without leaning on the backs of other women. 0.70
00:54:39.820 Okay, after all, who are the women in Sandberg's world?
00:54:43.820 An anecdote from Sandberg's 2010 TED Talk revealed her surprise when the men who invited her to make a pitch in their boardroom didn't know where to find the woman's bathroom. 0.60
00:54:53.040 If she asked one of the people who vacuumed the boardroom, there's a fair chance they would know.
00:54:57.520 According to a recent report, 33% of janitorial jobs in Silicon Valley are held by women. 0.99
00:55:03.360 Okay, are held by women.
00:55:04.600 Okay, this is very... 1.00
00:55:06.340 God, Katie, you're making me defend Cheryl.
00:55:08.600 say, okay, can I just say, we have spent, like, this makes me think a lot about, like, Scott
00:55:14.680 Galloway and Jonathan Haidt, and, like, men who write about culture.
00:55:19.420 Diabolical lies, sleep paralysis demons. 0.98
00:55:25.280 Which is a much more interesting way of saying disgusting brothers. I guess the thing that just 0.99
00:55:29.500 strikes me is, like, even in our episode, which I think derided, you know, Scott Galloway's memoir,
00:55:35.320 We did it on the basis of his arguments.
00:55:37.900 And it's just really interesting to me that, like, when men write about culture, they're not even scrutinized.
00:55:43.100 Like, Scott Galloway's including citations from sources that don't exist.
00:55:47.140 And no one is writing about that besides Jessica Winter, her one review for The New Yorker, which debates him on the merits of his arguments.
00:55:54.300 And it just strikes me as, like, really interesting that you have someone who didn't read the book and who is going out of her way to argue Sandberg's book on the merits of an argument that Sandberg herself is not making.
00:56:08.900 Like, the idea of being like, well, these women are leaning on other women.
00:56:12.060 It's like, well, yeah, of course.
00:56:14.000 Yeah, okay, can't we apply that to, like, Warren Buffett as well?
00:56:17.380 This was my question after reading this, is where are the men in this accounting?
00:56:22.760 because yeah like it's legitimate to point out that there is a racialized low-wage workforce of
00:56:31.680 primarily women doing care work but also this is a really weird example to choose to illustrate
00:56:39.900 your point because if you read this she ends it according to a recent report 33 percent of
00:56:46.740 janitorial jobs in silicon valley are held by women which means the majority of people working
00:56:51.940 the low-wage cleaning jobs in Silicon Valley are men, not women. So again, this is a class thing, 1.00
00:56:57.780 which I know that this writer understands because she works for Jacobin. And secondly, again,
00:57:02.680 it feels very slippery to suggest, and this is a direct quote, there's simply no way for women to
00:57:10.180 reach parity in the labor force without stepping on other women. Because the assumption underpinning
00:57:15.900 that sentiment is that the work in the home is theirs to either complete or outsource. This is
00:57:21.660 your responsibility. So if you're not going to do it, obviously you're going to outsource it to
00:57:25.800 a low-wage woman, right? And so I think that we know that racialized work and occupational 1.00
00:57:32.140 segregation are real problems. We know that good infrastructure and fair compensation
00:57:35.920 are what can address those things, not a business book. But my point is that if we're going to
00:57:42.240 offer that as the reason why there's simply no way for women to make progress in the paid labor 0.93
00:57:47.900 economy without making the lives of other women worse, well, we should probably address the
00:57:54.260 reality that men's careers and the functioning of our entire society writ large are already enabled 0.97
00:58:00.040 by leaning on the backs of these women. And as this example shows, low-wage men. So it's not
00:58:05.480 that it's wrong, it's just that it's only half the picture, and it's leaving out the more important
00:58:10.240 half. So it's placing this like disproportionate level of, in my mind, moral and social responsibility
00:58:16.520 on women to basically be like, yeah, figure out this riddle. You want to work? Okay, well, 1.00
00:58:22.760 who's going to do your housework for you then? Obviously, that's going to go to another woman. 1.00
00:58:26.760 The other thing that's funny about this is, and you and I have talked about this, that like, 0.89
00:58:30.400 I guess in some like end-state communist utopia, no one would ever work for anyone ever again.
00:58:36.480 I feel like you and I both talk about how that's not really the point that you and I are interested in
00:58:41.100 And it's funny how like the way that she's laying this out 0.89
00:58:43.700 Basically implies that women should never have anyone working for them
00:58:47.520 Even if they pay them fairly or like the idea that a woman hiring a house cleaner 1.00
00:58:51.700 Yeah, that a woman hiring anyone. Yeah, well because it assumes that the work is de facto degrading 1.00
00:58:57.340 Right exactly and so it just strikes me as really interesting and again
00:59:01.000 The point that you brought up earlier that i've never really thought about which is like
00:59:03.820 well how are women ever going to have a job ever if we can't acknowledge this like slight
00:59:09.380 incongruency so another thing that was interesting in this vein is that bell hooks in her review
00:59:15.220 of lean in pointed out sandberg basically doesn't talk about money at all in the book
00:59:20.140 which is a pretty glaring omission considering it's a book about career advancement and like the
00:59:25.340 most popular data point that we have to point to to tell us that this is still an area of inequity
00:59:31.260 in our society is that women earn less than men do. 0.95
00:59:34.300 But Hooks basically says, yeah, 0.98
00:59:35.720 like the reason she's not going to talk about money
00:59:37.540 is because it would force her to confront 0.62
00:59:39.700 women who live in poverty.
00:59:41.860 Then the next day, we get February 26th,
00:59:46.000 Sheryl Sandberg is no Betty Friedan
00:59:48.200 by Michael Kazin for The New Republic.
00:59:50.980 Oh, a man enters the chat.
00:59:52.600 Yes, I think this is the only one from a guy from today.
00:59:56.300 Yeah, so we're not going to read anything from this one
00:59:58.560 because it, I don't know, it was okay.
01:00:00.460 But it just also contained an admission that he had not read the book.
01:00:05.100 So we're not going to read it.
01:00:07.280 That's so weird.
01:00:08.560 So let's pause.
01:00:09.760 I got all the articles opened and organized in all these little tab groups in my browser
01:00:15.540 labeled by year.
01:00:16.640 And I'm like, all right, I bet by 2015, people were already starting to push back.
01:00:21.820 I bet it was pretty fast.
01:00:24.160 She didn't make it out of February 2013.
01:00:26.440 not only was there almost exclusively backlash to this book in this in this critique in this like
01:00:33.280 early couple reviews that started coming out before it came out but the backlash by my read
01:00:39.360 is pretty explicitly feminized and condescending and like often not engaging with the actual
01:00:45.760 content of the book so we are going to talk about the solid criticism today as well but i just found
01:00:51.460 that to be extremely challenging to like assimilate with this idea that there was ever universal
01:00:56.320 support for these ideas that this was like ever widely celebrated so let's keep moving through
01:01:01.640 how this conversation shifted so by february 28th there's already an article responding to the
01:01:07.720 backlash in the lefty magazine salon and this is still before the book came out correct won't be
01:01:13.380 up for two more weeks incredible i'm gonna have you read this so you can get a sense now for like
01:01:18.360 how the conversation was beginning to evolve because yeah now people are coming in and they're
01:01:22.280 starting to defend it. You're getting that kind of, like, back-and-forth dynamic happening.
01:01:29.620 I'm referring, if you haven't been paying attention, to the race to scorn Sheryl Sandberg. 1.00
01:01:34.580 The Facebook executive has written an avowedly feminist book about women in the workplace that
01:01:39.240 has been gleefully misrepresented in several cases by people who admit to not having taken
01:01:43.860 the time to read it in platforms as big as The Washington Post and The New Republic. Yeah, I mean,
01:01:48.380 that's unacceptable. It is, of course, fair game to critique Sandberg's actual message,
01:01:53.400 which she freely concedes has a specific audience of professionally ambitious women who can afford 0.97
01:01:57.880 to make choices to, quote, lean into the workplace. If only more people took a moment to hear that 0.99
01:02:03.140 message out. So far, much of the outrage has been aimed at either cherry-picked quotes or
01:02:07.720 straw woman arguments, and plenty of media outlets have been all too happy to give their
01:02:12.380 imprematures to such willfully incomplete work. Then you get another defense on March 1st in the
01:02:19.260 Daily Beast. These attacks, largely divorced from anything Sandberg has actually written or said,
01:02:25.220 mean that there's already a lot of public misunderstanding of her book's message.
01:02:29.060 One would think she was peddling a multi-level marketing scheme, not the most overtly feminist 0.87
01:02:33.680 mainstream business book ever written. True, she wants to work within the system rather than 1.00
01:02:38.840 smashing it. And parts of her book, as she acknowledges, quote, will be most relevant
01:02:42.900 to women fortunate enough to have choices about how much and when and where to work,
01:02:47.220 end quote. But so what? No book speaks to everyone. And leadershiped homes by wildly
01:02:52.420 successful male executives aren't typically pilloried for ignoring the concerns of immigrant
01:02:56.940 day laborers. Yeah. And also what I would say is like most airport books that sell tens of
01:03:03.040 millions of copies are like just like dumb as fuck, not just dumb as fuck, but are like 1.00
01:03:07.500 blatantly untrue or like encouraging men to literally either like do a pyramid scheme or 1.00
01:03:13.220 malcolm gladwell or exploit other people or just like lie and we don't even like challenge that we
01:03:19.060 don't even engage with that seriously so it is funny that like a book again that i think
01:03:22.740 canon should be debated on the merits of like how do we whatever help women in the workplace
01:03:28.340 the idea that like even writing a book that does the chicken and rather the egg is disqualifying 0.61
01:03:34.360 while men are running around being like, 0.99
01:03:36.120 we need more world wars 0.99
01:03:37.460 and are getting like $20 million fucking podcast deals. 0.98
01:03:41.700 We're going to nudge our way to a healthier population. 0.98
01:03:44.980 Seriously.
01:03:46.120 So what follows over the next month is a game of tennis
01:03:48.860 between the detractors and the defenders,
01:03:51.260 though it was obvious to me reading through all of it
01:03:53.580 that the detractor narrative was A, picking up steam faster
01:03:57.220 and B, largely finding a foothold in bigger publications.
01:04:01.260 so i'm gonna link the majority of these pieces in the show notes in case anybody wants to go like
01:04:07.760 click through them in no particular order but now we're going to read two excerpts from positive
01:04:13.540 reviews that came from that defender posture so you can kind of get a sense for like the story
01:04:18.320 that was taking shape this is from jessica valenti of abortion everyday fame in the washington post
01:04:25.520 and her piece was called 1.00
01:04:27.600 Sheryl Sandberg isn't the perfect feminist, so what? 1.00
01:04:31.660 She writes that this media critique, quote, 0.99
01:04:33.900 underestimates how radical Sandberg's messages are
01:04:36.660 for a mainstream audience.
01:04:38.440 When was the last time you heard someone
01:04:40.140 with a platform as big as hers argue 1.00
01:04:42.100 that women should insist that their partners 0.97
01:04:44.540 do an equal share of domestic work and childcare, end quote.
01:04:48.500 And then on March 13th, we get,
01:04:50.480 is Sheryl Sandberg's lean in
01:04:52.140 the next great feminist manifesto in Ms. Magazine?
01:04:55.520 So, if you will please read this from Ms. 0.54
01:05:00.460 Sandberg's lean-in philosophy has been the subject of much controversy. 0.99
01:05:04.140 Is she blaming women for not trying hard enough?
01:05:06.440 Far from it. 1.00
01:05:07.500 Sandberg argues that the reason women hold themselves back in their careers is because of those messages they've received their entire lives. 1.00
01:05:13.720 That it's not very feminine to be aggressive or ambitious. 1.00
01:05:16.760 That as a woman, it's nearly impossible to have both a career and a family.
01:05:20.900 Her point isn't that women aren't ambitious, but rather that women are afraid to fully embrace their ambitions because they've been convinced of those two messages their entire lives.
01:05:30.360 Yeah, it's just, it's really striking me. I feel like my understanding of lean-in criticism was founded in the idea that, like, the people who criticize it are people who are progressive and leftist.
01:05:41.300 To your point, bell hooks can and should criticize Lean In, but someone who hasn't read the book and
01:05:47.680 is arguing a totally different argument than what Sandberg is saying, it really just reeks of
01:05:52.240 misogyny. And I think that, like, even in this Ms. review, I would add to this defender who's
01:05:59.660 saying, like, oh, the point is that women are afraid to fully embrace their ambitions because
01:06:03.700 they've been convinced of these two messages. I'm like, well, yeah, and, like, they can't. 0.81
01:06:07.420 Like, they actually just can't fully embrace their ambitions today. I think the point,
01:06:10.980 though that Cheryl is making that I actually think is a very necessary cultural shift is the
01:06:16.700 idea that women can and should be allowed to be prioritized in that way and should expect this
01:06:22.840 from their partners and like shouldn't feel as though their career definitionally has to take 0.94
01:06:28.860 the backseat in a relationship. And I think that that's something that we are very uncomfortable
01:06:34.160 as a society with talking about in the context of systemic conversations about like what needs
01:06:40.600 to change. Like, Stephanie O'Connell and I were talking about this, and I told her, I was like,
01:06:44.800 look, I am a huge advocate for universal child care. I think that's the bare minimum that we
01:06:49.820 should have in society. And if culturally we don't shift our ideas about parenting and women,
01:06:56.360 it's still going to be the woman leaving work every day to go pick up the kid from universal 1.00
01:07:00.720 child care. So it's like, it actually isn't enough just to have better policy. We do actually have 0.93
01:07:06.920 to change people's minds, and policy can help do that. But like, I think we're kidding ourselves
01:07:11.600 if we think that none of this is cultural. I also wanted to touch on something interesting
01:07:15.460 that came out in dissent around this time, which is that this is best understood not primarily
01:07:21.360 within a feminist context, but within the broader context of entrenching ideas of technocracy. 1.00
01:07:27.620 So it draws parallels between Sandberg's rhetoric and Zuckerberg's rhetoric running Facebook. 1.00
01:07:35.220 This is called Feminism's Tipping Point, Who Wins from Leaning In?
01:07:40.020 And this piece was written by a former Facebook employee who became Zuck's speechwriter from 2005 to 2010.
01:07:50.400 He has a speechwriter?
01:07:52.340 He did.
01:07:53.100 That's the most embarrassing thing I've—
01:07:54.420 And she was underpaid.
01:07:56.300 Oh, she, she, that's the most embarrassing thing I've ever heard.
01:07:59.900 Never kill yourself, you might become Mark Zuckerberg's speechwriter.
01:08:03.060 This is probably the most prescient criticism that we'll read today, especially in light of how AI has changed this conversation and the way that, like, Lean In is now doing, like, AI apologia and, like, here's how we're going to bridge the gender gap in AI adoption.
01:08:18.340 Okay, Lean In begins with an introduction called Internalizing the Revolution, and like Zuckerberg's 2007 F8 speech, it aims to redefine what revolution means.
01:08:29.580 Sandberg's revolution is not asking corporations to renovate their operations to eliminate sexism.
01:08:35.120 Rather, revolution in Lean In is a battle to restructure the self.
01:08:39.520 Quote, throughout my life, I was told over and over about inequalities in the workplace and how hard it would be to have a career in a family.
01:08:45.280 I rarely heard anything about the ways I might hold myself back, end quote.
01:08:49.960 Sandberg details the ways in which she was insecure or afraid during her career rise, 0.97
01:08:54.140 arguing that other women should learn from her mistakes and assert themselves.
01:08:57.900 Though if the proof of the pudding is that Sandberg became a COO in a man's world,
01:09:01.980 we may question how much her self-deprecation helped to minimize any threat that her success
01:09:06.160 posed to men. Lenin's goal is to push women forward into their work so as to overcome what
01:09:11.360 Sandberg represents as women's universal internal resistance to career velocity.
01:09:17.760 Sandberg's language in this chapter, while directed at women, recalls and even replicates
01:09:22.080 the language deployed at Facebook to push its employees to work harder. That's interesting.
01:09:26.720 At Facebook, the offices are festooned with posters that read things like,
01:09:30.420 Be bold. Move fast and break things. Done is better than perfect. And what would you do if
01:09:35.920 you weren't afraid probably quit my job facebook's corporate imperative no not me if i worked at
01:09:42.340 not this job facebook's corporate imperative to move quickly and gain influence over more people
01:09:48.040 figured in a formula one vocabulary of speed and victory is repeated in sandberg's writing
01:09:53.500 quote when more people get in the race more records will be broken end quote and don't put
01:09:58.520 on the brakes accelerate keep your foot on the gas pedal the loser in the lean-in vision of work 1.00
01:10:03.880 isn't one version of feminism or another. 1.00
01:10:06.380 Other feminist organizations and publications 1.00
01:10:08.360 will continue to flourish alongside lean-in, 0.99
01:10:11.060 though they may receive less media attention.
01:10:13.460 But uncapitalized, unmonetized life itself.
01:10:17.020 Just as Facebook relies on users
01:10:18.740 to faithfully upload their data to drive site growth,
01:10:21.680 Facebook relies on its employees
01:10:23.260 to devote every time to growing Facebook's empire.
01:10:27.080 That's super interesting.
01:10:28.620 So I thought this was an interesting point of like, 1.00
01:10:32.060 okay, the feminism part of this is actually kind of a distraction from the fact that this is another 1.00
01:10:38.880 means by which the Facebook ethos is being spread throughout society. I was like, 0.85
01:10:44.980 it's a little conspiratorial, but I still kind of thought it was interesting. And then
01:10:47.940 similarly, I thought Susan Faludi's review in The Baffler was incredible because hers is
01:10:54.160 specific enough in its emphasis on building labor power to actually be useful. It is making this
01:11:01.000 critique from a like dismantling perspective and not from a like this bitch is annoying perspective 1.00
01:11:06.980 she also spends a fair bit of time similarly arguing that lean in is actually about getting 0.97
01:11:13.040 people to join facebook this okay this is the criticism that i'm here for joining quote the
01:11:20.720 community was just a click away in fact the community was already uploaded and ready to
01:11:26.500 receive them. All they had to do was hit the Lean In Today button on their computer screen and,
01:11:31.920 oh yeah, join Facebook. There is no entry into Lean In's Emerald E-Kingdom except through the
01:11:37.680 Facebook portal. Sandberg has kept her message of liberation confined within her own corporate
01:11:42.720 brand. Yeah, that's fascinating. What is she selling after all, if not the product of the
01:11:46.900 company she works for? Every time a woman signs up for Lean In, she's made another conquest for 1.00
01:11:52.100 Facebook. Facebook conquers women in more than one way. Nearly 60% of the people who do the daily 0.97
01:11:58.020 labor on Facebook, maintaining their pages, posting their images, tagging their friends,
01:12:02.580 driving the traffic, are female. And unlike the old days of industrial textile manufacturing, 1.00
01:12:08.140 they don't even have to be paid or housed. Yeah, that's a great critique.
01:12:11.840 Then we get to a piece on March 19th that I want to pause and spend some time with.
01:12:15.580 Lean In has been out for a week at this point, because I think it says some of the quiet part
01:12:19.740 out loud where a lot of this initial resistance is actually coming from. So, if you heard that
01:12:24.620 Valenti quote and scoffed that there was anything about this message in 2013 that may have been
01:12:30.020 radical, please read from a big story The Atlantic published called What Lean In Misunderstands
01:12:38.260 About Gender Differences by Christina Hoff Summers.
01:12:43.340 heritage foundation's latest intern sandberg's goal is to liberate her fellow americans from
01:12:52.920 the stereotypes of gender but is that truly liberating ladies is it gay to have no rights
01:13:02.780 in a 2008 study in the journal of personality and social psychology a group of international
01:13:10.220 researchers compared data on gender and personality across 55 nations. Throughout the world, women
01:13:16.020 tend to be more nurturing, risk-averse, and emotionally expressive, while men are usually 0.90
01:13:22.620 more competitive, risk-taking, and emotionally flat. But the most fascinating finding is this.
01:13:28.700 Personality differences between men and women are the largest and more robust in the more prosperous,
01:13:34.140 egalitarian, and educated societies. According to the authors, quote, higher levels of human
01:13:39.680 development, including long and healthy life, equal access to knowledge and education, and
01:13:43.920 economic wealth were the main nation-level predictors of sex difference variation across
01:13:48.600 cultures, end quote. New York Times science columnist John Tierney summarized the study
01:13:53.740 this way, quote, it looks as if personality differences between men and women are smaller
01:13:58.500 in traditional cultures like Indias or Zimbabwe's than in the Netherlands or the United States.
01:14:03.920 A husband and a stay-at-home wife in a patriarchal Botswanaan clan seem to be more alike than a
01:14:08.880 working couple in Denmark or France, end quote. I have so many questions. In a 2013 national poll 0.78
01:14:15.240 on modern parenthood, the Pew Research Center asked mothers and fathers to identify their ideal
01:14:20.820 working arrangement. 50% of mothers, oh, this shit, I was waiting for this to come. 50% of mothers 0.99
01:14:26.980 said they would prefer to work part-time, and 11% said they would prefer not to work at all.
01:14:31.480 fathers answered differently 75 percent preferred full-time work and the higher the socioeconomic
01:14:39.720 status of women the more likely they were to reject full-time employment among women with
01:14:45.020 annual family incomes of 50 000 or higher only 25 percent identified full-time work as their ideal
01:14:51.000 sandberg regards such attitudes as evidence of women's fear of success double standards gender 0.99
01:14:57.220 bias, sexual harassment, and glass ceilings. This is like in our last episodes where capitalism is 0.95
01:15:02.760 a woke word. Oh, capitalism and apartheid. Are you telling me that my body image issues are
01:15:08.860 because of something stupid like patriarchy and white supremacy? Obviously, it's a feed. 1.00
01:15:16.180 But what if they are the triumph of prosperity and opportunity?
01:15:21.080 Okay, so. I mean, like how much time do you have?
01:15:24.860 Scott Galloway kicks in the door. This is basically an article that completely disregards
01:15:32.320 the very socialization that Sandberg is talking about. This is the chicken. Yeah, it doesn't
01:15:38.460 surprise me at all that American men report wanting to work full-time more than American
01:15:44.300 women did in 2013. American men are told at every turn that they are worthless pieces of shit 1.00
01:15:50.860 if they cannot provide for a family. 1.00
01:15:54.360 The same goes for women who may prefer part-time work 1.00
01:15:56.800 to spend more time with kids. 1.00
01:15:58.300 Like, sure, some of that preference is still going to be there
01:16:00.780 in a more egalitarian society across everybody.
01:16:03.480 Paid work outside the home is not something
01:16:05.040 that all people find enjoyment and meaning in.
01:16:07.220 And some people do prefer and find the most meaning
01:16:10.680 in caring for other people full-time. 1.00
01:16:13.280 But women also receive messages about how they are shitty mothers 1.00
01:16:16.700 if they don't prioritize their kids. 0.97
01:16:18.660 I am open to biological arguments about like, you know, who gives birth and who does not and what chemicals are involved and blah, blah, blah. But the assumption that like, because women give birth, they are naturally inclined to being alone in a house with a child is like, that's not our biology.
01:16:36.320 Pretty big jump.
01:16:36.760 Yeah, it's like a pretty big jump to make. And I will say like anecdotally, this is obviously just one data point, but like obviously I have been traveling for seven and a half weeks now. I've been away from home. My spring has been very big. And like on a personal note, the last few years of my life have been like my personal life kind of revolves around me. Like my husband's in full-time grad school and we have spent a lot of time thinking about me, talking about me, planning for me. He has been taking care of our house and our pets while I have been gone. And we are fine with it.
01:17:04.940 Like, this has been, like, he has been completely supportive.
01:17:07.560 There has never been a moment where it's, like, you know, what's going on?
01:17:10.460 The amount of questions and support that he receives from people who are worried about him because I have had this moment of success is so notable.
01:17:21.720 Like, it is really, really interesting the extent to which people are worried about how he is taking a moment in my professional career.
01:17:30.120 And he and I just, like, laugh about it.
01:17:31.560 We're like, wow, someone checked in on you again.
01:17:33.420 And it really gets into this idea of the cultural reinforcements that we do talk about privately all the time. But like the extent to which I think it's hard for us to even notice it because it is so ingrained. But the pressure that women face to and the support they receive to focus on children and vice versa, the criticism men receive and the lack of support if they choose, even for a period of time, like Riley didn't, it's not like Riley dropped out of grad school, but like for him to be taking care of our house, taking care of our pets, all this stuff.
01:18:02.480 it's like wow what a big thing you're doing what a sacrifice you're doing for caroline as opposed
01:18:08.500 to like if the roles were flipped everyone would be looking at me and being like well when are you
01:18:12.180 going to quit your job yeah you know riley succeeded like it's it's such an inverse or
01:18:16.400 they'd be like wow you're so lucky that your husband is so successful yeah yeah 100 and
01:18:20.640 what i get all the time is you're so lucky that your husband is so supportive that's what i get
01:18:25.100 Yeah. So, on that note, one of the constant points of criticism of Lean In is this idea that Cheryl is suggesting erroneously that women can have it all if they just work harder to do it all.
01:18:38.840 Kiro, what do you see on your screen right now? 0.99
01:18:44.840 Porn! Katie's showing me porn! 1.00
01:18:47.280 It's the Pussy Pocket! 1.00
01:18:50.060 Yeah, we share one. We mail one back and forth. 1.00
01:18:51.960 Bob's Pussy Pocket. It's got to come back later in the episode. 0.99
01:18:55.300 Oh my god, I'm totally getting you a customized Pussy Pocket. 1.00
01:18:58.440 Okay, the myth of doing it all. That's chapter nine. 1.00
01:19:02.100 Can you just read the first paragraph?
01:19:04.700 Yeah, okay. Quote, having it all, end quote.
01:19:08.080 Perhaps the greatest trap ever set for women was the coining of this phrase. 1.00
01:19:12.320 Bandied about in speeches, headlines, and articles, 0.99
01:19:14.740 these three little words are intended to be aspirational,
01:19:17.660 but instead make all of us feel like we have fallen short.
01:19:19.940 I have never met a woman or man who has stated emphatically, yes, I have it all. Because no
01:19:26.500 matter what any of us has and how grateful we are for what we have, no one has it all.
01:19:31.700 Okay, so that is chapter nine of Lean In, the myth of doing it all. I want to take a second
01:19:38.720 and talk about this having it all thing, because while the critiques of Lean In that suggest
01:19:42.520 Sandberg just thinks you need to try harder to have it all are complete mischaracterizations of
01:19:47.360 what she actually says. I also think she misses the mark here. So an analysis of 2022 American
01:19:55.680 time use data finds that for full-time workers, it is as if men get a month more per year of
01:20:03.380 vacation compared to their women peers. Men who work full-time report 400 additional hours of
01:20:10.720 leisure time per year than women who work full-time. And crucially, the report concluded,
01:20:15.020 and I think this is really, really critical, and I'm ringing this bell myself because I'm always
01:20:19.220 the one that's like, it comes down to class. The report concluded that more than income level
01:20:24.940 or parental status, gender remains the primary predictor of this leisure gap discrepancy between
01:20:31.500 full-time workers. Similarly, a 2023 paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas finds that if
01:20:38.560 men were unable to marry, prime-age male work hours would fall by 7%. So the paper does not
01:20:46.940 establish a causal link, which is to say, like, the study authors are not sure the direction of
01:20:52.160 causality or if this is a causal relationship, but it does note that, quote, currently married men
01:20:57.860 between the ages of 20 to 54 work at least 30% more annual hours than men who have never been
01:21:05.240 married, a gap which has remained roughly constant since 1975. So there is a positive correlation 0.99
01:21:11.920 between marriage and male prime age working hours. And I think O'Connell writes about this
01:21:17.180 really, really well. She basically says the typical pattern in heterosexual couples is this
01:21:22.720 implicit dynamic where men are okay with women having careers as long as they are still handling
01:21:28.900 the family stuff. So they may support the woman's career, but that support is largely theoretical
01:21:34.380 rather than involving much in the way of material sacrifice or adjustments on his part.
01:21:40.380 They support it as long as it, yeah, as long as nothing changes for them.
01:21:43.300 Yes. Here's O'Connell describing some research from the 1988 book, The Second Shift.
01:21:50.860 Okay. Nancy tried to implement a similar approach with laundry, but after what had happened with
01:21:56.320 cooking, quote, Nancy wanted a clear, explicit agreement. You ought to wash and fold every other 1.00
01:22:02.560 load, she told Evan. Evan experienced this as a yoke around his neck. He's like, I'm being oppressed,
01:22:08.720 help, help, I'm being oppressed. He didn't like rigid schedules, he told his wife, and he didn't
01:22:14.060 like having her standards of housekeeping imposed on him. Here, Evan did what many men in heterosexual
01:22:20.420 relationships do. He personalized the problem by suggesting it was something about his individual
01:22:25.780 personality and Nancy's particular preferences that made her uniquely well-suited to doing
01:22:31.580 everything around the house. This allowed him to reframe the preservation of his own work-life
01:22:36.560 balance at Nancy's expense as, quote, natural. Okay. This is my favorite chapter in O'Connell's
01:22:44.020 new book, The Ambition Penalty, because I think it really gets at this idea that we were talking
01:22:48.280 about earlier, which is that policy change alone is not sufficient to shift these household
01:22:53.640 dynamics. That is very uncomfortable to confront. And when we talk about things like universal
01:22:59.840 child care as necessary for women's workforce participation. That is absolutely true, and
01:23:06.200 it's noteworthy that it only ever comes up in the context of women's ability to participate
01:23:11.920 in the economy. Again, the implication is that the child care is to help them, not to help
01:23:18.300 everyone. Researchers have not found a relationship between child care costs and men's working hours
01:23:26.020 in the same way that they do between childcare costs
01:23:28.680 and women's working hours.
01:23:31.040 So she also writes this of research from a 2024 paper.
01:23:36.440 Okay. 1.00
01:23:37.340 Women's professional ambitions, financial autonomy, 1.00
01:23:40.720 work-life balance, and personal well-being 0.99
01:23:42.820 are disproportionately sacrificed
01:23:44.380 to bear the costs of the private sphere,
01:23:46.780 even in households that claim, quote, egalitarian values.
01:23:50.940 Quote, couples made decisions
01:23:52.380 that better served men's interests,
01:23:54.240 even as partners argued that both spouses' interests were served,
01:23:58.140 concluded Jacqueline Wong and Alison Deyminger.
01:24:01.200 This pattern was so common that they called it the myth of mutuality.
01:24:05.080 When couples talk about making work-life decisions that are best for, quote, us,
01:24:08.920 or, quote, our family, while overwhelmingly privileging or upholding men's interests, 0.64
01:24:13.960 oh my god, research has found that when we're able to recast this chronic inequality as fair,
01:24:18.760 legitimate, and justified, it both maintains and perpetuates the patriarchal gender hierarchy,
01:24:23.600 while undermining support for policies that would enable all of us to integrate our personal and
01:24:28.360 professional ambitions more sustainably. Okay, so when I was researching the essay that I wrote
01:24:35.060 that kind of preceded this episode and made me want to do it, I came across this piece from a
01:24:39.360 career coach who said the biggest obstacle that she sees her clients face is not workplace policy
01:24:46.060 or like a lack of access to whatever. It is that their male partners are simply unwilling to make
01:24:51.940 any, quote, material or practical adjustments to accommodate their ambitions. And Sandberg,
01:24:59.180 I think, correctly diagnoses this issue in Lean In, but then her advice for dealing with it is
01:25:04.340 sort of adult male toddler coded, where it's like, ladies, even if he puts the diaper on the baby's
01:25:10.120 head, you should still smile and congratulate him because at least he's doing it. It's just 0.53
01:25:14.760 not really helpful. And so I asked O'Connell what she made of all this, and she wrote back this.
01:25:20.760 she said, anti-ambition has been lauded as everything from personally empowering to radically
01:25:26.420 anti-capitalist, bold claims that are undercut by one glaring oversight. The supposed ambition
01:25:32.660 reckoning has landed almost exclusively on women's ambition. If hustle culture, endless striving, 1.00
01:25:38.280 and dogged careerism is so bad, and I agree it can be, why aren't men also getting the message
01:25:43.380 to trade in their power suits for prairie core and trade in their paychecks for personal care?
01:25:48.000 Where is the genre of personal essay telling men how much easier and more fulfilling their days would be if they just stopped worrying so much about their livelihoods and started leaning into their softness? 0.85
01:25:58.000 If public and professional ambition is why modern life has become too exhausting, exploitative, and expensive, then why is it only recognized as something we should opt out of when women pursue it? 0.68
01:26:09.120 While access to meaningful leisure and rest remains a social media fantasy for most women, it's something men in the U.S. already enjoy, and they haven't had to give up their professional or economic power to unlock it. 0.78
01:26:23.860 400 additional leisure hours per year i know so it seems to me we're just gonna we're gonna
01:26:32.620 pivot to girl boss now but it seems to me that nowhere is scrutiny of the corporate world and
01:26:39.020 capitalist power structures more apparent in mainstream media than in the context of a girl
01:26:44.700 boss story like when a woman talks about wanting to be the best at something or how she got to the 0.87
01:26:49.820 top of her field, often things that are related to the masculine goods of career or money,
01:26:54.640 that scans first and foremost as a girl bossy impulse, which has these connotations of like 1.00
01:27:00.080 selfishness and individualist and not being for the collective good rather than just being-
01:27:05.500 Everyone suddenly becomes a communist when they want to make one of Sheryl Sandberg,
01:27:09.180 and then they take that right back off when the review is over.
01:27:13.940 And so there's a conflation that I started to notice where valid criticisms of corporations
01:27:19.060 and corporate power structures just kind of melted in our public consciousness into just
01:27:23.480 critiques of ambitious women, period, and kind of like clowning on that impulse altogether.
01:27:29.320 And what distressed me most about it is just how often these critiques slide into total nihilism
01:27:33.900 that anything could be done to improve professional and personal lives of women
01:27:37.260 short of a total teardown of the system.
01:27:41.220 Well, that's kind of what I'm thinking now that you're presenting all of this is like,
01:27:45.220 yeah, theoretically, I think you and I are exactly the kind of people who would be critical
01:27:48.860 of the idea of talking about individual solutions over or in lieu of also talking about society.
01:27:54.840 I think that we've made that clear on this podcast.
01:27:56.820 But it is funny that, like, there is kind of an argument of, like, well, if capitalism 0.86
01:28:01.060 is what we have right now, God forbid a few women make some money. 0.86
01:28:06.840 God forbid a woman has hobbies. 1.00
01:28:09.240 God forbid a woman has hobbies. 1.00
01:28:11.020 I don't listen to Call Her Daddy very often, but I did listen to a great episode with her 1.00
01:28:14.340 and Ellen Pompeo. And they talked about how Ellen Pompeo, who plays Meredith Grey on Grey's Anatomy,
01:28:19.580 had a huge financial success and basically renegotiated and demanded a very high payday
01:28:25.320 10 or 11 seasons in. And Alex Cooper talked to her about how when she negotiated her podcast
01:28:31.120 deal, she thought that when they announced it, everyone would celebrate. Because she's like,
01:28:35.740 I've been watching sports stars announce these major deals. I've watched male podcasters announce
01:28:41.580 major deals and it was like yeah hell yeah I just negotiated a big fucking deal and it was just like 0.98
01:28:47.740 crickets and Ellen Pompeo said the same thing she said that when she negotiated her deal she thought 0.97
01:28:52.400 that friends were going to celebrate her and be like good for you for getting your worth for a
01:28:56.960 show that she basically sacrificed the rest of her career for like she gave up any other acting
01:29:00.800 ambitions to be you know Meredith Grey and Grey's Anatomy and she said she called her manager and
01:29:04.900 her manager said oh no honey you need to expect the opposite which is everyone's going to hate you
01:29:09.800 Well, and I think the bigger problem here, too, is that, like, this critique became so much bigger than the original ideas that were presented, but it was not—none of this was replaced by a coherent, affirmative vision of socialist feminism.
01:29:26.740 What we are left with instead is this idea that having aspirations as a woman is, like, problematic in some vague way, which is why I think the present anti-ambition moment is, A, so clearly gender-specific, and, B, just so easily assimilated into the discourse.
01:29:43.080 Like, it just, it's like, it seems so natural and unquestioning, and there is, like, a sort of anti-capitalist leaning to it if you don't really engage with it critically.
01:29:52.560 So that was 2013. Now we are going to shift to 2014 when we get Girl Boss. So Girl Boss by
01:30:02.420 Sophia Amoruso is a memoir that comes out in 2014. The first Girl Boss review that I can find is from
01:30:07.860 Helen Lewis. So what's interesting is that Helen Lewis is still on the Girl Boss beat. Like this
01:30:14.160 review is from 2014. She published something in March for In the Atlantic called The Death of
01:30:20.040 millennial feminism and the article image as a tombstone with the word girlboss written on it.
01:30:24.480 And I was like, dude, so much mileage out of the girlboss thing. So this is a critical review of
01:30:28.920 girlboss that makes critiques I think you and I would broadly agree with, which is that memoirs
01:30:33.440 focus on your unbelievable tale of ascension from being a high school dropout shoplifting anarchist
01:30:39.880 to a person running a hundred million dollar company sort of reinforces this fantasy that
01:30:45.060 like that is possible when in reality that happens to like one person. But there it is right at the
01:30:52.800 end, if you will please read. Girlboss must be hoping to get a little bit of the reflected glory
01:30:58.740 of Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In, which has quickly become the go-to source for thinky thoughts on 1.00
01:31:03.800 female leadership. Despite many activists' understandable reservations about quote
01:31:08.400 trickle-down feminism, that book was at least full of useful analysis of why it is still so
01:31:13.400 rare to have a boss with breasts. In Britain, for example, women make up just 20.7% of FTSE 100 1.00
01:31:20.640 boards, and there is still one blue chip company, Glencore, with no women on the board at all. 0.82
01:31:26.140 Sandberg's key finding was that we just don't like women who reach the top.
01:31:30.480 Quote, success and likability are positively correlated for men and negatively for women,
01:31:34.840 she writes. When a man is successful, he is liked by both men and women. When a woman is successful,
01:31:39.900 people of both genders like her less. Perhaps that's why I found Girlboss so vexing. Or maybe 1.00
01:31:45.520 it's the wretched hashtag in the title. Okay, so like fair, but still kind of funny for her to
01:31:52.300 kind of break the fourth wall and be like, well, she's a successful woman, so maybe that's why I
01:31:56.400 don't like her. We are going to actually fast forward to 2015 now briefly to see how the
01:32:00.820 coverage changes now that both of these books are in the world. And then we're going to spend
01:32:05.220 the most of our Girlboss-related time in 2017.
01:32:08.380 This is when there's, like, a really big wave of it
01:32:10.600 because the TV adaptation of the memoir comes out on Netflix.
01:32:14.340 There was one season of the show called Girlboss.
01:32:16.840 One thing I think is probably worth noting
01:32:19.240 is just that, like, the critical reception of Lena notwithstanding,
01:32:23.040 it was a commercial success.
01:32:25.060 Like, millions of women did read the book.
01:32:27.300 And I just, I don't know, because I think often we might think, like,
01:32:29.980 it's hard to know often when something hits the discourse
01:32:33.480 whether or not it succeeds or not.
01:32:34.880 like I think about like Olivia Nessie's American Canto and how it was like oh yeah like whether
01:32:38.520 it's organic yeah if it is yeah like and it's I actually think it does speak to the fact that like
01:32:43.060 women did read this book and when you have millions of copies being sold that only happens
01:32:48.160 really with word of mouth once women like people start to recommend it to one another and so
01:32:52.340 it is worth noting that like people did read it whether or not the institutions thought they
01:32:57.980 Yes. We will read one article about like what women thought about it, but obviously one article
01:33:06.520 isn't representative of millions of women. So in 2015, we get a piece from Liz Brunig in The New
01:33:11.900 Republic that actually quotes the founder of a socialist feminist magazine called Lux, which is
01:33:18.560 a great magazine, highly recommend. But I think it's really useful as a timestamp of where we
01:33:23.800 were in 2015 compared to now. So this is called Sheryl Sandberg's Lean-In Philosophy Doesn't
01:33:30.760 Just Ignore Disadvantaged Women, It Hurts Their Cause. If you will please read.
01:33:38.480 The idea that ambition shouldn't be hampered by gender is so commonplace as to need little
01:33:43.060 defense. Regardless, it is worthwhile to say it's an idea I agree with and one that Sandberg's
01:33:48.100 feminist critics do not object to. The same goes for the call for dads to be involved at home.
01:33:52.740 Okay, so that line, the idea that ambition shouldn't be hampered by gender is so commonplace as to need little defense. I was like, I don't know if things were different in 2015, but it certainly isn't fucking true now. 0.83
01:34:05.900 Yeah, I don't know where you're living.
01:34:08.360 But to argue the case that Sandberg's focus on how women can navigate workplaces and men can be more involved at home actually hurts low-wage women, Liz uses the example of parental leave being zero-sum. 1.00
01:34:23.680 For low-wage women, the ideal solution would be universal paid maternity leave funded by the state. 0.96
01:34:29.600 This is where their interests clash with the interests of women in Sandberg's position, 0.95
01:34:33.920 whose companies might, in light of a universal paid maternity leave program, 1.00
01:34:37.840 reduce their cushy, individually negotiated programs and instead direct employees to the
01:34:42.640 federally funded alternative. In fact, this very argument against a universal paid maternity leave
01:34:48.160 mandate was proposed by the conservative YG network in their 2014 policy manual, Room to Grow.
01:34:54.880 Quote, this new federal entitlement, Kerry Lucas warns, would encourage businesses currently providing paid leave programs, including more generous leave packages, to cease doing so.
01:35:04.800 For the neutral onlooker, basic universal maternity leave for all would surely trump generous maternity packages for a select few.
01:35:13.080 But this is only the case when imagining benefits in collective terms.
01:35:17.140 Sandberg's vision is far more individualistic.
01:35:18.620 individualistic. Thus, when women in high-income jobs find themselves following Sheryl Sandberg's
01:35:23.960 advice and negotiating plush maternity arrangements, they might also find themselves
01:35:28.780 politically neglecting a universal maternity leave program. These wealthier women and their 1.00
01:35:33.680 families are the ones with the money and influence to push ad campaigns and dabble in politics. 1.00
01:35:38.580 That is, they're the ones with the power to effect change for all women. But they're not 0.95
01:35:42.760 likely to wield their power in that way. Sandberg's corporate feminism preaches individual 1.00
01:35:47.640 female empowerment in the workplace and now at home too rather than collective social action 1.00
01:35:52.600 and women who subscribe to that approach are more likely to funnel resources into advanced education
01:35:57.920 and leadership training rather than into the machinery of politics and protest okay i'm
01:36:04.780 realizing i'm tired of myself this episode is making me realize that like i am tired of like
01:36:10.580 that i would probably make all these arguments if we hadn't been going through all of this and
01:36:15.060 I'm starting to feel like there are a lot, like, it's a lot of whataboutism to me.
01:36:21.400 Yeah, I think this is thoughtful. Like, I think this is a thoughtful criticism, and I think it's
01:36:26.180 a question worth asking. Does individual solutions for some people actually make it worse
01:36:31.380 for the collective? Though, from where we sit in 2026, 10 years on, I don't feel convinced that
01:36:39.860 the reason we don't have mandated paid parental leave is because too many women are successfully
01:36:45.460 lobbying their workplaces for leave and then therefore now are in opposition to state mandated 0.78
01:36:50.060 leave. I don't think most women without workplace parental leave are, quote, funneling their efforts
01:36:56.120 into the machinery of politics and protest either. And I think that kind of speaks to the bigger 0.97
01:37:01.340 problem here, which is like whether your company gives you leave or not, we just kind of lack a
01:37:06.860 culture of organizing in America, period, which is a fact that we'll come back to later.
01:37:12.780 Well, there's a real like snake eating its own tail series of arguments here that I'm thinking
01:37:17.140 about where, as you have pointed out on more than one occasion and kind of illuminating me,
01:37:22.580 we don't expect men to have these conversations at all. They're not even asked about the child
01:37:26.820 care conversation. They certainly don't write about the child care conversation of their own
01:37:30.280 volition. It's not their problem.
01:37:31.860 Right. So we're excluding 50% of the population. And also they're in the positions of power, both in Congress and in Fortune 500 companies. And so someone like Sheryl Sandberg might say, yeah, we need more women in these positions. We need to figure out a way for more women to go into positions of power. But then we're also saying like, well, there's no point in that because that's not getting us to structural freedom.
01:37:55.820 But I'm like, so then how are we going to get there? Because like, you don't want the individual solutions. You don't think it's going to get better if women become CEOs. And like, I theoretically understand that. But like, the only real conclusion to me would be we have to start holding men to account for the child care conversation. But men are left out of this conversation altogether.
01:38:14.100 But we are also largely as women reinforcing it as a problem that we assume that only women should care about by specifically criticizing Sheryl Sandberg. Like, how many women are writing reviews for other male airport books about how they talk about how people can get ahead?
01:38:30.980 That there is no child care talk.
01:38:32.720 Yeah, it just really is an interesting thing because, again, I agree with the points being made in this article. I agree that we need to get to a collective social action, but we are essentially cutting ourselves off at the kneecaps by refusing to view any sort of individual solution in either direction.
01:38:48.420 I'm doing this episode, and I think you agree with this, like from the position of someone who often makes these arguments.
01:38:53.780 And so I feel like it's forcing me to refine more what I actually believe about these things and what I mean by collective social action.
01:39:02.200 Because it's interesting to be like, well, she's talking about empowerment at work and at home, and I'm talking about social change.
01:39:08.640 And it's like, well, what is social change if not at work and at home?
01:39:11.760 Obviously, there's legislation.
01:39:13.060 Obviously, there's community.
01:39:14.200 But like these are the building blocks of those things.
01:39:16.680 Like, if you can make it more equal for people in their homes and in their workplaces, like, that is going to shift the way that we think about these problems.
01:39:27.300 I feel like one of the questions I am thinking about as we go through this is, like, what do and what did we want from Sheryl Sandberg?
01:39:36.600 And what does it mean that that is what we wanted?
01:39:39.520 I think it's like, yeah, the guillotine.
01:39:40.760 I think it's like, because there's a multifaceted thing where it's like, number one, this, and this happens all the time, I could get into this, where it's like, one book will never speak for everyone.
01:39:49.860 It will never give you every argument.
01:39:52.160 So it's like, first of all, are we critiquing something on the merits of what it aimed to do or just off of the fact?
01:39:58.040 Or do you want a different book?
01:39:59.880 Or did you want a different book?
01:40:01.160 And number two, what do we actually think of what Sheryl Sandberg is saying and what she is trying to argue?
01:40:07.560 Mm-hmm.
01:40:08.620 So there was positive coverage, too.
01:40:11.100 In 2015, we also get a piece from the BBC
01:40:13.520 about the impact the book has had on women who have read it.
01:40:17.120 I tried to see, like, was this payola?
01:40:19.880 Like, did someone, was this like,
01:40:21.040 I mean, it could have been a PR pitch from a lean-in rep.
01:40:23.080 I don't know, because it was pretty favorable,
01:40:24.840 but there was nothing in the article
01:40:26.460 that, like, suggested it was paid for
01:40:28.840 or that there was anything hanky going on.
01:40:31.080 It was called, What Impact Has Lean-In Had on Women?
01:40:33.700 And it says,
01:40:34.560 Lean-In has also had a more personal impact on many women.
01:40:37.760 This has been the case for Mindy Engberg, 52,
01:40:40.760 a captain with United Airlines. For most of her career, Engberg downplayed her success as one of
01:40:46.500 a relatively small number of female commercial pilots. Quote, it's not a big deal. Anybody can
01:40:51.520 do it, she used to say of her job. Since reading Lean In, however, Engberg says she has made
01:40:56.040 concerted efforts at, quote, not apologizing that I do fly a plane. Vanetta Young, meanwhile,
01:41:02.160 thinks about her marriage differently since reading Lean In. Young, 29, is an investment
01:41:06.820 associate in New York City who works in private equity. Her husband is an attorney. Quote,
01:41:12.320 I had this assumption that his career is going to be more important than mine, she says. Reading
01:41:17.340 the book helped me see that obviously you have to make certain compromises in marriage,
01:41:21.560 but the onus of that doesn't always have to fall to the woman. So I'm reading this and I'm like,
01:41:27.020 this is valuable in my mind. Well, and I mean, anecdotally,
01:41:30.780 you read it and it was meaningful to you. Yeah, and look at me now, leaned in as fuck, bitch. 1.00
01:41:36.820 so i think what this gets at is not the policy consequences of a book like this one but the 0.99
01:41:43.960 cultural consequences i think we sometimes tend to really minimize that because of how seriously
01:41:49.360 behind we are policy wise but if i am steel manning the case for a book like this one i say
01:41:55.400 well yeah you're not going to get an emphasis on the need for parental leave or universal child
01:42:00.620 care or shorter work weeks or enforcement of anti-discrimination clauses if you don't really 0.98
01:42:05.160 think that women should be at work in the first place. If our culture socializes both women and 0.99
01:42:11.040 men to believe that women's hopes and dreams for their lives outside of marriage and childbirth
01:42:16.460 just matter less, the policies that are downstream of that culture are more likely
01:42:22.800 to just continue to affirm those ideas. Policy is not made in a vacuum. And Lean In does not
01:42:30.360 make this argument explicitly. Her theory of change is that more women leaders alone is going 1.00
01:42:35.820 to solve this problem. I don't agree with that, but I think the case for cultural change, which 0.90
01:42:40.860 is kind of what she is trying to do, is extremely important. Yes, I agree with you very much. Like
01:42:46.600 more women leaders isn't going to solve the problem, but exclusively male leaders is also
01:42:51.960 not going to solve the problem. It's not a bad thing. So what are we doing here? Right. Like, 1.00
01:42:57.520 i think to your point like most civil rights legislation is predicated on like some sort of
01:43:03.220 expectation of parity of like of mapping out statistics and it is kind of interesting to
01:43:08.960 totally disparage that idea because again like yeah it's not going to solve anything but there
01:43:13.040 is a worthwhile effort in that or we have at least claimed to find that to be a worthwhile
01:43:18.640 effort in some regard besides just trying to petition to have like the hundred white men in
01:43:23.560 Congress just passed this poll. Like, we do think, to a certain extent, that representation matters.
01:43:29.140 Yeah.
01:43:29.660 So, yeah, that is really funny. I've never really kind of tried to square that before,
01:43:33.220 those two arguments.
01:43:34.960 Ah, not if Maureen Dowd could help it. That was the other thing that kind of, like,
01:43:38.580 rubbed me the wrong way. And I know this is super ad hominem, but, like,
01:43:42.460 it was really frustrating to me to read women like Maureen Dowd, who have been opinion columnists 0.98
01:43:47.280 at the paper of record for 30 fucking years, being like, this is elitist. I'm like, Maureen. 0.98
01:43:53.560 You're an opinion columnist at the fucking New York Times. Like, what do you mean? What do you mean this is elitist? Your entire career is like built on the same philosophy, whether you own it or not. Like, you leaned in. You did what she's describing, you know? 0.99
01:44:09.020 You know what? Actually, I feel like I could draw a connection if I had more caffeine and more research time between like how we use claims of elitism for any person, again, who isn't represented in the dominant power group whenever they get to a position of relatively threatening power.
01:44:25.020 Like I remember Barack Obama was accused of elitism.
01:44:27.600 Classic.
01:44:28.120 Very often. And it's like, yeah, I guess. But also like, yeah, well, that's what a black man has to do to get to the presidency.
01:44:35.100 To be a president? Yeah. 0.92
01:44:36.200 Right. And again, no one accuses George Bush Jr. of being elitist, even though he went to Yale. You know what I mean? It's like, he's a man of the people. And so it's funny how people who are in minority groups are accused of being elitist. And that is what happens to keep them from ascending any farther. And then white men who are inherently in the elite group often have to present as of the working men.
01:45:00.420 There was a cartoon in The New Yorker the other week that was, like, it was a picture of, like, Moses with the Ten Commandments next to the golden calf.
01:45:08.900 And these two people in the crowd were like, you know, Moses has some really good ideas, but, like, I feel like I could get a beer with a golden calf.
01:45:18.680 That's amazing.
01:45:20.080 Okay, now we're going to spend some time with Girlboss because we saw another wave when the Netflix series came out.
01:45:25.460 So, this is the official logline of Girlboss. 1.00
01:45:30.420 rebellious and broke Sophia stumbles into creating an online business and learns how to be the boss
01:45:37.820 a comedy inspired by the best-selling memoir so I decided to re-watch it now that almost 10 years
01:45:43.360 have passed it is very fucking corny I remember liking it when I first watched it RuPaul is also
01:45:49.600 randomly in it he's a TSA agent in the show and like her next-door neighbor and friend um it was 0.95
01:45:55.720 called a, quote, worrying caricature of women's enterprise in the sociological review. So now
01:46:03.220 we're going to watch a trailer, but not for Girlboss. This is a movie that came out the same
01:46:09.260 year that Lean In was published. Whoa. Plot twist. Oh, fuck yeah. Let's go.
01:46:18.900 my name is jordan belford the year i turned 26 i made 49 million dollars which really pissed me
01:46:28.500 off because it was three shy of a million a week we're making a name for ourselves
01:46:34.100 nobody knows if the stock is gonna go up down sideways or in circles you know what a fugazi is
01:46:43.220 No, fugazi, it's a fake. 0.97
01:46:45.720 Yeah, fugazi, fugazi, it's a wasi, it's a woozy, it's a...
01:46:49.000 Fairy dust.
01:46:51.640 Was all this legal?
01:46:53.300 Absolutely not.
01:46:54.300 We were making more money than we knew what to do with.
01:46:56.460 We don't work for you, man.
01:46:57.780 Yeah, my money takes you to booze.
01:46:59.220 Technically, you do work for me.
01:47:01.260 What's wrong, daddy?
01:47:03.100 But why should you bring it home?
01:47:04.680 Oh, my God.
01:47:07.180 FBI, any kind of booze you might want.
01:47:09.660 The Bureau forbids us from drinking.
01:47:11.600 Duh.
01:47:13.220 How does this actually work?
01:47:29.940 There's a big money sign.
01:47:30.980 They get launched at the tide, they stick.
01:47:32.820 This is their gift, okay?
01:47:33.940 They're built to be thrown like a lawn dart. 0.52
01:47:35.940 One, two, three! 0.99
01:47:38.820 Stop. Safety first.
01:47:40.180 Safety is first.
01:47:41.780 We don't want to get a bad reputation.
01:48:11.780 Mm-hmm.
01:48:14.600 Oh.
01:48:17.580 Yeah.
01:48:23.840 All right.
01:48:25.300 So.
01:48:25.820 Okay, since this episode is going to be largely you getting canceled for supporting Sheryl Sandberg, 0.97
01:48:30.280 I will just insert my small hot take, which is I don't give a shit at all that Leonardo DiCaprio only dates extremely young women. 0.92
01:48:36.220 I love him. 0.96
01:48:36.720 Well, that is very problematic of you.
01:48:39.120 And we will deal with you after class.
01:48:40.900 Hold you to account.
01:48:41.780 Yeah, you will be held accountable for that for not caring about Leonardo DiCaprio.
01:48:47.420 No, no, no, no, no, no.
01:48:48.340 Hold on a second.
01:48:49.040 I care very much about Leonardo DiCaprio.
01:48:51.280 I don't care about any of his foibles.
01:48:53.440 I don't care that he takes private jets.
01:48:55.200 I think he's a great climate change rep, and I support him, and I support his roles.
01:48:59.280 Cool.
01:48:59.720 Well, so did the rest of society.
01:49:02.360 The Wolf of Wall Street is a movie that won nine awards.
01:49:09.480 Did you ever see this movie?
01:49:11.280 I'm not leaving this topic yet.
01:49:14.700 Are your feelings hurt?
01:49:16.000 Yeah, I thought that I am generally always interesting to you.
01:49:19.980 And I feel like in that moment.
01:49:23.860 You are the most interesting thing in my life.
01:49:27.380 We've been over this.
01:49:28.660 Don't make me say it again.
01:49:30.280 Okay?
01:49:31.080 I'm going to give you some feedback.
01:49:32.160 Next time I bring up Leonardo DiCaprio,
01:49:33.820 I would like you maybe to ask a clarifying question.
01:49:36.200 Say that's interesting.
01:49:37.460 Let me know how you feel about him.
01:49:38.900 I'm just giving you...
01:49:40.900 Katie just took, Katie looked exhausted. 0.70
01:49:44.900 Okay, let's get back to your outline. 1.00
01:49:46.460 The emotional labor that my bitch wife is making me perform right now. 1.00
01:49:54.940 Okay. 1.00
01:49:55.600 All right, go on.
01:49:56.640 Did you ever see The Wolf of Wall Street?
01:49:58.380 I'm going to assume yes, based on the Leonardo DiCaprio defense you just mounted.
01:50:04.700 Oh my God, the revenant.
01:50:06.260 Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
01:50:07.040 I know that listening to this, you can't really see what's going on in the trailer. I would
01:50:12.380 actually recommend pausing this and just going and watching it for a second so you just took
01:50:16.820 in the same sights that Kara and I just did. Do you remember anything about the main character
01:50:21.040 played by DiCaprio in this movie? Nothing specific. I don't think I've
01:50:25.900 watched it in a decade. Do you remember anything about how the
01:50:28.600 men in your life reacted to this movie? Oh, yeah. He was aspirational.
01:50:33.060 Yes. The Wolf of Wall Street is a movie that tells the story of a real person named Jordan Belfort, who scammed and stole from a lot of regular people with a penny stock scheme. And in coverage following the film, Scorsese and DiCaprio and even Jordan Belfort himself, like calling, phoning in from federal prison, all characterized the film as like an indictment of Jordan Belfort's behavior.
01:51:00.200 And everyone else were like,
01:51:01.980 this is very much glamorizing this behavior, but whatever.
01:51:05.380 The problem is that the critique
01:51:07.220 largely went over the audience's head.
01:51:09.700 It was not perceived in the public as a movie
01:51:11.940 that was like condemning greed and like working in finance.
01:51:15.520 We could talk about why that is,
01:51:16.940 but I think the trailer really actually conveys that pretty well,
01:51:19.400 which is that it's a bunch of men getting really rich,
01:51:22.260 surrounded by gorgeous women. 0.98
01:51:24.500 Margot Robbie's not wearing panties. 1.00
01:51:26.580 There's a lot of Lamborghinis. 0.98
01:51:28.180 their champagne pool parties like people fucking loved the wolf of wall street gonna have you read 0.97
01:51:34.200 a bbc headline from this time this is like um brett easton ellis's american psycho which i have 0.98
01:51:42.100 read and i think was a very effective indictment of american consumerism and misogyny and people
01:51:47.200 now still men still dress up as patrick bateman an american psycho for halloween and are like
01:51:52.560 rock on i mean i feel like you could make an argument that they're glamorizing it you can
01:51:57.160 also make an argument that media literacy is dead and both would probably be true okay yeah
01:52:01.360 the wolf of wall street why we like a villain i could have a conversation about this after a
01:52:07.200 spring on yesteryear tour seeking comment from natalie heller mills on uh why we like villains
01:52:13.240 okay so now that we have watched that we are gonna watch the trailer for girl boss so that
01:52:22.060 is Wolf of Wall Street. This comes out the following year. This is Girlboss on Netflix.
01:52:29.020 Girl, wash your boss face. I want this. I'll give you a buck for it. No way. The tag says 12. Nine 1.00
01:52:36.060 bucks. And I'll give you some free business advice. Deal. So what's the advice? This is an
01:52:43.700 original 1970s East West calfskin motorcycle jacket in perfect condition. Know what you're worth
01:52:51.100 because you just got played.
01:52:53.020 Yikes.
01:52:55.460 So what exactly is your business?
01:52:58.440 You know how people flip houses?
01:53:01.560 Well, I flip clothes.
01:53:07.040 Boom! Dollar, dollar bills, y'all.
01:53:12.980 Unless you want the HPV, 1.00
01:53:15.080 you better close your legs, girl. 0.95
01:53:16.780 It's everywhere. It's in the walls. 1.00
01:53:21.100 I could, like, live doing this forever.
01:53:25.100 I never have to get another job again.
01:53:28.100 Good. 0.98
01:53:29.100 Those shoes are ridiculous. 0.97
01:53:31.100 I don't know why, but I like you. 0.96
01:53:33.100 Maybe you should pick up a couple Red Bulls and some Band-Aids, 1.00
01:53:36.100 because I'm gonna f*** you. 1.00
01:53:38.100 Your generation is so tough. 1.00
01:53:41.100 Low overhead, steady demand, high margins.
01:53:44.100 You're killing it.
01:53:51.100 Once you lose eBay's trust, it holds a grudge.
01:53:58.100 I think the best thing for you would be to move back home so I can keep an eye on you.
01:54:03.100 No way. I am not selling stuffed animals out of my bedroom.
01:54:07.100 I'll start my own site. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't, but it'll be mine.
01:54:17.100 We sold out!
01:54:20.100 I'm so happy.
01:54:22.120 Oh, honey, is this about how deep that was?
01:54:24.780 D.K.O.
01:54:26.260 Head on the radio.
01:54:28.200 D.K.O.
01:54:29.740 D.K.O.
01:54:32.740 Go ahead.
01:54:34.280 Underestimate me.
01:54:35.620 I've got it all figured out.
01:54:39.280 Okay, so for those who have not seen this show
01:54:43.380 or are not familiar with the story that this was based on,
01:54:48.320 Sophia Amoruso, the character in the show, his name is Sophia Marlowe, started this like clothes
01:54:54.740 flipping business on eBay and then turned it into a company called Nasty Gal, which she scaled to
01:55:00.720 $100 million without any investors or backers or like anything, which is just objectively like
01:55:09.080 pretty incredible. Nasty Gal ended up going bankrupt. Accusations came out that she fired,
01:55:14.800 I think, several employees who were pregnant, and it all kind of like crumbled from there.
01:55:22.120 Now we're going to read some early reviews again in order. So before the show comes out,
01:55:26.140 there is a piece in Thrillist. This is the very first thing about Girlboss that I could find
01:55:32.120 called Netflix's first Girlboss trailer looks like a female wolf of Wall Street.
01:55:37.820 Then, on April 17th, we get the first review in Variety.
01:56:07.820 Girlboss is a love letter to a paragon of success that doesn't exist.
01:56:11.600 It does not help that Amoruso's book Girlboss, the bestseller that the show is based on,
01:56:16.420 is a kind of millennial lean-in, part generic advice and part ballsy showing off.
01:56:21.200 Oh my god, this is going to give me a nosebleed.
01:56:23.400 Okay, followed on April 21st by The Guardian review,
01:56:26.840 Girlboss review, a tone-deaf rallying cry to millennial narcissists.
01:56:32.520 Oh, Katie, did you design this episode to specifically make me want to jump off a brig? 0.98
01:56:37.820 I wanted to twiggle you.
01:56:40.840 I'm twigged.
01:56:42.840 It all starts with a girl in a bedroom in San Francisco,
01:56:46.180 wishing she could opt out of adulthood and just please herself all day.
01:56:49.560 Oh my God. 1.00
01:56:50.920 We meet her pushing a clapped out car up a hill while wearing an outfit barely covering her butt cheeks.
01:56:57.000 If real Sophia is anything like fictional Sophia, played by the otherwise excellent Britt Robertson,
01:57:02.280 the spunky teen from Tomorrowland, 0.71
01:57:03.880 then she deserves none of her success and should immediately hand over every cent to charity for 1.00
01:57:08.920 crimes against humanity oh my god fictional sofia is a walking selfie whining about having to work 0.98
01:57:14.380 for a living she says love you in case i die whenever she bids farewell to her best friend 0.99
01:57:19.220 and she inexplicably steals food out of dumpsters despite having a dad who offers to help her out
01:57:23.960 financially it's a show which fully mistakes being an overindulged horror show for being an
01:57:29.240 assertive millennial role model. Oh, my God. According to show creator and writer Kay Cannon,
01:57:35.040 a girl boss is, quote, opinionated, confident, feisty, end quote, and, you know, strong or 0.98
01:57:39.520 something. She and her co-producers, of whom Charlize Theron is one, are trying to make
01:57:44.360 girl boss the new girl power. The same vapid, non-specific, something to do with feminism and 0.99
01:57:49.420 hot pants fluff, but with added narcissism and less of a sense of humor. Dude, this is... 1.00
01:57:54.560 I thought we liked villains. I thought we liked shows about fraud. Not that there's fraud in this
01:58:01.560 show, but you could have fooled me. And also just like another point to The Wolf of Wall Street,
01:58:07.600 beyond the fact that people quite enjoy men being antiheroes, people have a very easy time
01:58:13.820 watching a movie about a man and knowing that it is not meant to be a symbol for how all men
01:58:18.360 should behave. And that is just like completely, we are intellectually bankrupt when it comes to
01:58:23.820 any sort of art about women and the idea that they should not represent how all women should
01:58:28.940 behave. That it's not like normative, morally normative. Completely. It's just, it's a movie.
01:58:33.040 It's a show. Uh, the next day we get Girlboss is a feminist fraud in the New York fucking Post. 1.00
01:58:41.540 So if you're ready to be lectured about feminism by the New York Post, do the honors. 1.00
01:58:46.760 the new netflix show girl boss promised fun fashion and feminism did it though did it promise 1.00
01:58:56.460 feminism or is there just a woman in it right moment question of the hour today put that on
01:59:01.740 a t-shirt the series which premiered friday is loosely based on the girl boss book by nasty gal 1.00
01:59:06.820 founder sofia amaruso while the show's sofia has the freedom to do a great deal that's just a
01:59:12.540 product of being 23. Feminism is not, quote, doing whatever you want whenever you want to. 1.00
01:59:18.360 Oh, smart, New York Post. Nor is it just, quote, about making a lot of money. It requires thinking 1.00
01:59:23.580 about others in the world. Doing so seems completely antithetical to the character on
01:59:27.780 Girl Loss. This is a character who, in the first episode, casually steals a rug from a store.
01:59:33.240 Her action prompts a man off screen to wonder, quote, is she going to pay for that? No, I guess
01:59:38.620 she's not. In the context of the show, the theft seems cheeky and fun-loving. But if the program
01:59:44.380 were about anyone but a very pretty young white woman, this plot point would be depicting a 0.70
01:59:48.440 mentally ill person who doesn't understand how payment works, okay? In future episodes,
01:59:53.340 she goes on to steal a book, sodas, and a Christmas tree. There are no repercussions.
01:59:59.620 Seemingly, the cool feminist message here is that you need never pay for anything ever again.
02:00:04.840 Honestly, the fact that Girlboss made the New York Post get this woke is so funny.
02:00:09.360 They're like, if she wasn't a young white woman, she would have been prosecuted for this crime.
02:00:14.100 I'm like, interesting.
02:00:15.220 So you do understand how racism works.
02:00:16.740 I thought the New York Post was colorblind.
02:00:18.980 I thought you didn't care if people were purple, New York Post.
02:00:22.840 Why are we bringing the race into this? 0.68
02:00:24.880 Oh, my God. 1.00
02:00:26.720 Okay, so she's stealing, and that's bad, and that's not feminist. 1.00
02:00:31.660 Now, this line, fun, fashion, and feminism, 0.99
02:00:34.520 is quoted and cited in multiple reviews that come after it,
02:00:37.940 but all of them linked to the post.
02:00:39.920 And again, the show did not bill itself as being feminist. 0.96
02:00:43.240 It's just about a young woman.
02:00:45.180 So a couple days later in The Atlantic,
02:00:47.300 we get, what does a girl boss look like? 0.98
02:00:52.360 The show is hampered, and this is like, this is genuinely.
02:00:56.740 I'm so sorry.
02:00:57.620 Genuinely, Katie.
02:00:58.440 i have plans to get a therapist and i've just been on the road and like the fact that you're
02:01:03.920 doing this before i get a therapist is really the show is hampered in the first 10 episodes by the 1.00
02:01:09.320 fact that sophia is so awful selfish stubborn arrogant did the argument write a review of 1.00
02:01:15.380 i'd love to know what the argument thinks about girl boss okay selfish stubborn arrogant and 1.00
02:01:24.760 entitled, she steals profusely a sandwich, a book, and a Persian rug. And the first two episodes 1.00
02:01:30.680 like, oh my God, tells her boss that his job is a soul-crushing joke and her boyfriend that he's
02:01:35.660 a glorified errand boy and refuses to include her best friend in her business. Everything you do
02:01:41.640 could be done by an intern, she spits over I am. Robertson's interpretation of the character is
02:01:46.820 part Juno McGuff, part Jesse Pinkman. This is delicious, yo, she enthuses about bow tie pasta
02:01:53.260 with butter, but Sophia's actions feel far more aligned with Jordan Belfort. I thought we liked
02:01:58.760 depictions of Jordan Belfort. I thought we liked Jordan Belfort. What happened? Oh, Jordan Belfort,
02:02:04.500 you mean the likable villain? Wow. Okay. And then lastly, on May 10th, we get,
02:02:10.840 take that, patriarchy, the horrific cack-handed, quote, feminism of Netflix's girl boss,
02:02:17.520 which ends like this. When anything goes mainstream, it tends to become less meaningful.
02:02:23.440 So maybe Girlboss is just a natural part of this particular movement's life cycle.
02:02:27.940 Yet it would be a shame if teenagers watching the show's cack-handed messages about selling 1.00
02:02:32.580 your body and being a prat were what feminism was about. One helpful thing it has done, 1.00
02:02:38.300 however, is take us back to the dark days of 2006 and remind us how good we usually have it now.
02:02:44.740 What?
02:02:45.580 Okay. 1.00
02:02:46.360 So, again, this woman was too much of a shithead to be a feminist role model, 1.00
02:02:51.920 but I am just struck after re-watching the show 0.99
02:02:54.700 and re-reading how it was positioned by the network
02:02:57.540 about why this is supposed to be a morally normative stand-in
02:03:00.960 for collectivist feminist values 0.90
02:03:03.160 when it's literally billed as a screwball comedy about a 20-something woman.
02:03:07.960 And, like, I'm not trying to be obtuse.
02:03:09.720 Like, I realize the show came out in that afterglow period of lean-in.
02:03:12.920 like you can't really separate it from this broader context. The book is literally called
02:03:16.620 Girl Boss. It's about a very successful woman entrepreneur. But the contrast between the 0.98
02:03:22.360 reception of Wolf of Wall Street, which is about a 20-something-year-old guy stealing tens of
02:03:28.260 millions of dollars from normal people, and Girl Boss, which is about a 20-something-year-old woman
02:03:36.220 being selfish while starting a business that becomes worth $100 million but steals a couple
02:03:42.180 sandwiches along the way felt worth exploring in this episode about whether we ever celebrated
02:03:49.340 the girl boss talking about these distinctions feels intellectually to me at this point in my
02:03:56.340 life like i am eating a bowl of nails with a spoon cereal style it's like i mean it's kindergarten i
02:04:02.840 know i feel stupid even having to point this out but i'm like okay but it's a good point and and
02:04:09.100 like again i think you're highlighting a lot of things that like i probably would have unknowingly
02:04:14.040 i probably i guarantee did unknowingly do these things up until today me too it's like so it's
02:04:20.740 not actually that obvious so finally we've arrived in 2019 where we get a piece by a writer who i
02:04:27.540 really like ej dixon but i think actually really captures the ethos of this entire episode perfectly
02:04:32.800 This was in Rolling Stone. 1.00
02:04:35.280 How Lean In Feminism Created Elizabeth Holmes and the Toxic Lady Boss. 1.00
02:04:41.360 Yeah.
02:04:52.200 Subtitled, The Theranos Founders' Specific Brand of Corporate Feminism Sets an Example for Us All.
02:05:00.440 All right.
02:05:01.300 Please read.
02:05:02.800 Oh, my God. After this conversation today, I'm going to go through all of our episodes and probably count all of the ways in which I have done this and then fucking lash myself in a corner until I've seen the light. Okay. 0.87
02:05:15.520 That's what women who do bad things should do. So, good idea. You should hold yourself to impossible standards to never be wrong about anything. 1.00
02:05:22.600 Okay. The ascent of the lady boss stems from the popularization of what has been referred to as lean-in feminism. Inspired by Facebook's COO, Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In, Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. When it was first published in 2013, Lean In was widely lauded for advocating that women lean in in the workplace to achieve professional empowerment and success. 1.00
02:05:49.100 It has since been roundly criticized for promoting a sanitized, corporate-backed view of female empowerment in which women must abide by the rules of the game as set by wealthy white men to achieve career advancement.
02:06:01.280 The book has also been slammed for ignoring many of the structural barriers in place, preventing low-income women or women of color from being hired in leadership roles.
02:06:10.420 Subsequent reports of Sandberg's unethical leadership at Facebook have further contributed to our retrospective understanding that she may be far from the feminist working women heroine that we'd hoped for.
02:06:20.200 Flag that. I want to come back to that. 0.69
02:06:21.520 More than arguably anything else, lean-in feminism also gave rise to Elizabeth Holmes. 1.00
02:06:26.920 I'm obsessed. I love it so much.
02:06:29.380 This is a different version of Freya India's argument that behind every man is a bad mom.
02:06:33.700 It's like behind every Elizabeth Holmes is Sheryl Sandberg.
02:06:39.680 As one of the few female leaders in Silicon Valley, only 11% of all Silicon Valley executives are women, according to a 2014 report. Holmes' gender worked to her advantage in terms of garnering media attention. As Alex Gibney, the director of The Inventor, told Time, she's looking at us and saying, support me because I am a woman in male-dominated Silicon Valley and I'm doing something great for the world. And we want to say, yeah, we're behind you, 100%. 0.51
02:07:05.280 Basically, she's saying that the ethos that lean-in feminism created, whereby we should support ambitious women who want to, like, rise in the corporate world, created an environment that's conducive to the type of fraud that Elizabeth Holmes then went on to commit. 1.00
02:07:26.500 So for those unaware, Elizabeth Holmes started a company called Theranos and claimed that its blood testing technology could do something that it could not do. So the devices that they made produced these like wildly inaccurate test results. And so they secretly were using just commercially available blood testing technology to run all the tests. 0.99
02:07:45.980 She raised a billion dollars in funding from investors based on fraudulent data and falsified
02:07:51.640 reports, and then was ultimately sentenced to 11 years in prison when it was discovered that she
02:07:57.500 had defrauded investors. Yeah. And then she like popped out two kids right before she went to
02:08:03.040 prison. Oh, did she? Which I just think is pretty hysterical. The prevailing theory is that like 1.00
02:08:08.600 she did it to get a more lenient cycle. But hey, let women be awful. If you want to pop out a kid, 1.00
02:08:13.740 If you want to pop at a kid and force your husband to be the primary caretaker because you're going to be in jail, who am I? 0.97
02:08:19.300 Maybe we need to force some men in that way. 1.00
02:08:21.620 Now, that is radical feminism. 1.00
02:08:23.380 That is radical feminism.
02:08:24.820 I think it's obvious that you and I aren't actually interested, like, whether or not Sheryl Sandberg is, like, a good person.
02:08:29.340 I mean, I'm pretty anti-meta.
02:08:30.760 Like, I'm not really interested in defending that.
02:08:33.340 But I do think there is something here about the idea of, like, well, only good people can talk about feminism.
02:08:39.580 Or, like, only if you practice what you preach in all regards can your theories about politics ever be relevant. 0.51
02:08:47.200 And I don't, again, I think that's another gendered idea. 0.63
02:08:50.600 I think that quite a number of male politicians are proven to have, number one, profoundly unsavory personal lives.
02:08:57.840 And we never hold that against them.
02:08:59.680 CC the Kennedy episode.
02:09:01.400 And we still have an ability not only to separate their personal lives from their politics, but to forgive men when we find out that they behave.
02:09:08.040 And also, like, we view their behaviors as good even when for women it would be bad.
02:09:12.460 But there is something there because I think I have done this with Sheryl Sandberg in the past as well. 0.97
02:09:16.600 And I'm just realizing I have never read Lean In in its entirety.
02:09:19.620 And I have been very quick to use it kind of as a symbol for, you know, like a certain type, which I'm fine with.
02:09:25.900 But, like, I think that the confidence—
02:09:27.360 Well, but understandably so, which is kind of—
02:09:29.480 Sure.
02:09:30.060 What I'm getting at is, like, there is a very specific story told about this book in the media.
02:09:36.320 But I think to add to that, I think that I bolstered my own sense of credibility on the
02:09:42.060 topic by believing that Sheryl Sandberg is not a good person. And I'm only realizing now that it's
02:09:48.480 like, well, what does that have to do with anything? More often than not, I think she is
02:09:53.220 criticized for being annoying and mean and rude and like kind of more, I don't know, there's just
02:09:58.680 something there where it's like, I understand to a certain extent this person is writing about the
02:10:02.980 workplace and you want to see about the workplace they are running, but also the idea that women
02:10:07.540 have to be perfect role models and also that they have to carry out their feminist politics 0.93
02:10:12.980 throughout all elements of their lives in order to claim to care about feminism is, I think, 1.00
02:10:18.900 a huge, and we talk about this with the injectables conversation, like, you cannot be politically 0.58
02:10:23.640 upright in every sense of the word, but we have an expectation that anyone who dares speak aloud
02:10:29.480 their interest in political liberation, it's like such an easy way to gotcha because you're
02:10:33.580 always going to gotcha someone. I do think it's relevant that she use like Mark Zuckerberg's
02:10:38.340 right hand. I don't want to invalidate that. And I think it is very relevant. I'm just kind of like
02:10:43.520 walking through my own implication here, but please continue. So this article argues that a
02:10:49.300 culture of quote, lady boss worship is what enabled Elizabeth Holmes to defraud investors. 1.00
02:10:56.540 but i'm kind of curious why like what makes this the result of lean-in feminism and not just the 1.00
02:11:04.540 incentives of capitalism capitalism yeah yeah yeah well wait wait a second well why why would 0.72
02:11:10.000 why would quote-unquote lean-in feminism lead to fraud like this right people commit fraud all the 1.00
02:11:15.260 fucking time and it has nothing to do with with lean-in and theoretically you could also make the 1.00
02:11:20.540 flip argument which is like yeah a woman finally became like a tech celebrity billionaire because 0.99
02:11:25.560 we opened, I think you could argue like, yeah, we did have a cultural moment where we were more 0.93
02:11:30.380 interested in the idea of women being in leadership roles. And so like, yeah, that maybe would have
02:11:35.560 benefited Elizabeth Holmes a little bit, but I actually don't necessarily think that's a bad
02:11:39.400 thing. You know what I mean? Like the fact that she ended up being fraudulent really means that
02:11:43.440 like for a moment, we allowed a woman to act like a man. And is that really so terrible? 0.55
02:11:47.060 Yeah, that's equality. That's show business, baby. 0.97
02:11:49.300 Okay, so I found some really interesting research. It's called The Rise and Fall of the Girlboss, Gender, Social Expectations, and Entrepreneurial Hype.
02:12:03.140 Love it.
02:12:03.860 This is a content analysis of 2,671 articles about, quote, the girl boss. They put together
02:12:09.800 a timeline that shows when the coverage spiked. This study found that the coverage was mostly
02:12:15.580 positive between 2014 and 2017. As you know, I could not personally validate that in my own
02:12:21.640 time-bound categorization process. There was certainly some positive coverage, but I would
02:12:27.100 definitely not characterize it as mostly positive, particularly when you are adding the term
02:12:31.380 feminism. But the thesis of this research is really interesting because it basically finds
02:12:36.920 that the same framing tools, which are used to build up a group in media hype cycles,
02:12:43.160 are later used to tear them down. So this is essentially the research basis for the process
02:12:49.020 of being womaned. Something they did that I found really interesting is they did a sentiment 0.90
02:12:55.480 analysis comparing how the fraud of Elizabeth Holmes was covered compared to the fraud of
02:13:00.980 Sam Bankman freed so they analyzed tone content and language in all articles about both of these
02:13:07.720 people from the defined period and these are two people who committed similar levels of fraud as
02:13:13.460 far as like the amount of money implicated they did so in similarly very public fashion had like
02:13:19.360 a real like darling to downfall media narrative associated with them and these are the paper's
02:13:27.480 findings on the comparison between the two. Both are disgraced, but while he is cast as a
02:13:32.560 relatable villain with the dorky girlfriend in tow, who is visionary and daring, she is tied
02:13:38.000 to virtue and morality. Yup. Crusading for others, but also as another man's duped accomplice. 0.69
02:13:43.720 Ooh. He is active, combative, and defiant. She is passive, defensive, and submissive.
02:13:50.600 SBF is attributed with having transformed the emerging industry by conforming to his publicly
02:13:55.400 stated vision of a more regulated and safer environment for users. SBF is afforded heroic
02:14:01.680 positioning and agency. Unlike Holmes, he is not quiet. He actively interacts with the media and
02:14:07.820 is very public in his defiance and protestation of his innocence. Holmes avoids interviews while
02:14:13.700 Bankman-Fried courts them. While both are cast as villains, Holmes' celebrity status is accentuated
02:14:20.480 and her status as an other in business and in tech is clear.
02:14:24.660 While the tech industry has moved on from SBF's trial,
02:14:28.240 Holmes' trial has sparked a referendum on gender in Silicon Valley,
02:14:32.660 with implications for women founders everywhere.
02:14:35.980 Her case is suggested to have massive implications
02:14:38.500 and has, quote, changed forever the landscape,
02:14:41.380 while his is, quote, just another example.
02:14:44.720 Dude, that's so good.
02:14:47.820 I thought it was really interesting the, like,
02:14:50.480 Even the type of language used between, like, how they are both protesting their innocence, he is defiant and she is defensive.
02:15:00.640 Even that type of language, which, like, one implies kind of being, like, saucy and standing up for yourself, and the other implying, like, oh, you're getting really defensive right now.
02:15:11.700 Right.
02:15:12.000 So 2020 really marked, to me, the definitive shift where the coverage transitioned from this, like, kind of clowning on the idea and this, like, back and forth between people arguing that it's a good thing and people saying it's bad, this game of sentiment tennis, to essentially declaring that the girl boss is good and dead.
02:15:30.900 Okay, so from this point forward, pretty much uniformly negative. Here are the five most prominent articles returned for the search girl boss feminism in 2020.
02:15:42.000 It's perfectly timed to us having the biggest labor dropout of women in modern history last year. 0.99
02:15:49.400 The Girlboss sure is dead.
02:15:51.220 Okay. 1.00
02:15:51.620 Yeah.
02:15:51.820 The Fall of the Girlboss is Actually a Good Thing by Business Insider.
02:15:56.260 Let 2020 be the year we get rid of girlboss culture for good.
02:15:59.940 Refinery 29. 1.00
02:16:01.760 Slayed Queens, the girlboss dethroned by The Spectator.
02:16:05.700 Incredible title. 1.00
02:16:07.500 Girlboss, when empowerment slogans backfire.
02:16:10.100 BBC. 0.80
02:16:10.460 See, the girl boss has left the building, the Atlantic.
02:16:13.960 Okay, and then I'm going to have you read just a snippet from that Atlantic piece.
02:16:18.200 Many people sensed a need for change, but not everyone agreed on how much. 0.99
02:16:22.440 In her pop feminist business memoir, Hashtag Girlboss,
02:16:25.720 the entrepreneur Sophia Amoruso, who had parlayed an eBay account 0.99
02:16:29.640 into the fast-fashion mini-Empire Nasty Gal,
02:16:32.500 proposed a convenient incrementalism. 1.00
02:16:35.160 Instead of dismantling the power men had long wielded in America, 1.00
02:16:39.220 career women could simply take it for themselves at the office. 1.00
02:16:42.400 Like Sheryl Sandberg's self-help hit Lean In Before It, 1.00
02:16:46.060 Girlboss argued that the professional success of ambitious young women 0.94
02:16:49.140 was a two-birds-one-stone type of activism. 1.00
02:16:52.060 Their pursuit of power could be rebranded as a righteous quest for equality, 1.00
02:16:55.900 and the success of female executives and entrepreneurs 1.00
02:16:58.480 would lift up the women below them. 0.98
02:17:00.860 Okay, so to be completely clear, 0.64
02:17:02.780 like, this is an argument I have personally made.
02:17:05.140 I'm going to own that.
02:17:05.800 Same, same, same, same.
02:17:06.660 written this paragraph on more than one occasion. And I see a lot of this differently now that we
02:17:13.280 are in this gendered anti-ambition wave. The line that really jumped out at me where I was like,
02:17:17.840 wait a second, because this is so common in pieces like this. Instead of dismantling the power men
02:17:24.000 had long wielded, career women could simply take it. This is understood to be like a folly, right? 0.96
02:17:31.260 Like, oh, they thought they could just take. It's implied to be naive. It's implied to be selfish.
02:17:35.580 it's implied to be individual.
02:17:36.760 This is like the wrong conclusion.
02:17:38.760 But what would it look like
02:17:40.560 to, quote, dismantle men's power,
02:17:42.540 but in a way that doesn't result 1.00
02:17:43.820 in women getting any power? 1.00
02:17:45.400 There's another world 0.98
02:17:46.520 in which these reviews of Lean In
02:17:48.600 and Girlboss and this whole conversation
02:17:50.160 is like, yes, and.
02:17:52.220 You know what I mean? 1.00
02:17:52.800 Like, yeah, we need more women 1.00
02:17:54.160 in leadership positions, 1.00
02:17:55.340 and this is what we need.
02:17:57.100 But again, and I hate to use this term,
02:17:59.560 but I'm really thinking 0.67
02:18:00.300 of the gendered term of cattiness,
02:18:02.520 of like eating your, 0.97
02:18:03.540 of like a movement eating itself. 0.97
02:18:06.420 We don't even need the conservative white men to weigh in.
02:18:08.860 We're weighing in on their behalf. 1.00
02:18:10.740 These are all fucking reviews written by women 1.00
02:18:13.000 for other women. 1.00
02:18:14.080 And frankly, a lot of these reviews are written by women
02:18:16.620 I would not exactly call leftists. 0.86
02:18:18.620 These are neoliberal women 1.00
02:18:20.160 who are destroying one of their own 1.00
02:18:22.680 without even having like the bona fides of a bell hooks
02:18:25.780 or of someone who writes in Jacobin.
02:18:27.780 I would have felt more validated
02:18:29.560 in my former take on this
02:18:31.880 if I would have read these things 1.00
02:18:33.320 and they were like, yeah, we do need more women in positions of power. Yeah, we do need more people 1.00
02:18:37.020 who aren't white men in positions of power. And when they get there, this is what we should have
02:18:40.680 them do. And this is why this is going to work. This is why this matters. This is not what you
02:18:46.080 got. No, we should not have women in positions of power. Actually, power is bad. Power is bad, 1.00
02:18:50.980 actually. No one should have power in this SI I will. I'm like, okay, but- Right, where does that
02:18:56.320 leave us? So to wrap up today, there was a 1991 book called Backlash by Susan Faludi that I wanted
02:19:02.200 to revisit as part of this episode. I am going to have you read a brief summary of Backlash.
02:19:08.680 We've referenced this book before.
02:19:10.520 We have. That is true.
02:19:12.620 Published in 1991, Backlash had quickly become an era-defining phenomenon.
02:19:17.920 Faludi presented a damningly methodical assessment of women's status in Reagan-era America. 1.00
02:19:23.000 The gains made by second-wave feminists in the 1970s, she wrote, had inspired a vicious 0.97
02:19:28.060 reaction from the protectors of the status quo. After a brief window in which corporate and media 0.94
02:19:33.240 interests had sought to commercialize feminism, the period of, you've come a long way, baby, 0.99
02:19:38.580 Virginia Slim's ad, they turned instead to demonizing single working women, extolling 0.99
02:19:43.880 stay-at-home motherhood, and inventing trends like the new traditionalism. Oh, I'm smelling a circle.
02:19:49.880 Whether offered up by screenwriters, journalists, politicians, or dubiously credentialed experts,
02:19:55.740 Backlash attitudes often took the form of an insidious twofold message. 0.94
02:19:59.800 First, that feminism had already changed everything, 0.95
02:20:02.640 and second, that feminism itself was the reason that women were now miserable. 0.99
02:20:07.140 If a woman in the 80s struggled to balance work and family, for example, 0.95
02:20:11.140 that was because feminism had given her the foolhardy confidence to think she could have it all.
02:20:16.540 Her difficulties were cast as a sign that the movement had gone too far,
02:20:20.380 not that it still had far to go.
02:20:22.860 Wow, should we all just bang our heads against a rock until we see each other in the afterlife?
02:20:27.060 Why do we have this podcast?
02:20:28.540 Why am I even alive? 0.99
02:20:30.240 People have been saying this for 40 fucking years. 0.99
02:20:34.500 Oh my God. 1.00
02:20:36.980 Wow.
02:20:37.820 Wow.
02:20:38.400 So, like I told you at the beginning, I have been reflecting on this idea that, like, well, we tried that and it didn't work since I started this research.
02:20:46.260 It feels like something we've both said.
02:20:47.700 I know I've said it.
02:20:49.320 I've read this constantly.
02:20:50.180 You know, the culture had its boss babe moment and like nothing changed. But did we really? Did we ever culturally embrace this idea that women could and should have access to what Stephanie O'Connell calls the financial, professional, and public power in addition to a fulfilling personal and private life?
02:21:12.240 There was never a period, at least not one that I could find in the internet archives,
02:21:16.800 where any of this was widely supported and encouraged in mass market media without significant
02:21:22.560 immediate outsized pushback that more often than not expressed a resistance to women's gains
02:21:28.620 within the framing of the flaws of the corporate world more broadly.
02:21:32.780 So after doing this research, I really felt something shift for me because I really couldn't 0.60
02:21:37.680 unsee the way that the girl boss was just more often than not wielded cynically as a sock puppet 0.99
02:21:44.120 to denigrate women's interests in things outside of marriage and childbearing writ large and to 0.99
02:21:50.200 basically write that off as inherently naive, inherently selfish, inherently capitalist.
02:21:56.080 And it is certainly true that policy change affects culture. Like in Denmark, for example,
02:22:01.140 they've instituted a parental leave that cannot be allotted to all one parent. Like you have to
02:22:06.380 split it. And if you don't, you just lose the other half. Elegant policy design does impact
02:22:11.580 cultural outcomes for sure. But do you know what else shifts culture? Media, the stories that we
02:22:18.700 are told, the stories that we read and watch and hear about on the news, narrative shifts culture.
02:22:24.760 And until we culturally perceive not just women's basic economic needs, but also their desires,
02:22:30.620 the things they want for their lives, as worthy of taking seriously here and now, 0.56
02:22:37.020 and not just as a means of, like, righting some greater wrong,
02:22:40.520 not only are we not going to make any progress with changing the structure of society
02:22:45.520 to be more equitable and conducive to enabling everyone to live full lives,
02:22:50.000 but women who ask to be seen and heard and recognized for their accomplishments and interests and talents 1.00
02:22:55.400 are just going to be reduced to girl bosses. 1.00
02:22:59.480 Wow. Katie, I don't want to freak you out, but I think you may be the voice of your generation.
02:23:06.020 Or at least a voice. I'm a voice of a generation.
02:23:10.980 No, seriously, I have known that you have been working on this, and we have joked where I've
02:23:15.900 been like, wow, Katie finally bit off more than she could chew. Like, she's going to take on
02:23:19.320 Sheryl Sandberg. You have so thoroughly changed my mind and also made me think about so many of
02:23:25.320 my preconceived beliefs today that I didn't even realize I was holding I really appreciate that and
02:23:31.220 I also think I appreciate that as one white woman podcaster talking to another this was like 0.90
02:23:39.500 a fundamentally illuminating for me so thank you I'm fucking shaken I've got to go delete every 0.88
02:23:44.600 if I hadn't already scrubbed my Twitter account you better believe I would be
02:23:48.180 that's all I gotta say no same I mean I felt that way too I think and none of it none of it
02:23:54.800 really struck me as interesting until this anti-ambition wave of stuff started coming out
02:24:00.760 and then I was like I feel really weirdly now about how we talk about women who want things
02:24:08.120 out of life and I think that there is just always this expectation that like there was even one
02:24:12.980 article that we read a quote from that was like Cheryl suggests that women should like care about
02:24:17.300 their own interests and desires instead of the interests and desires of others and I'm like 0.70
02:24:21.440 so hold on can they not can they not care about their own interests and desires is it a bad thing
02:24:26.960 to care about your own life i'm like it's really interesting how everyone suddenly recognizes that
02:24:32.780 corporate power structures are bad when women become in control i want to get a baseball hat 0.64
02:24:38.300 that says i'm a communist so that i don't have to be a feminist 1.00
02:24:40.980 i'm gonna get one that says let women do fraud 1.00
02:24:46.500 Ha ha ha ha. 1.00