This woman sounds extremely fortunate to have either somehow avoided the well documented, shared barriers that many women face. Maybe she's just completely oblivious. But it cuts deeper when a woman (especially one in an apparent position of power, though I've never heard of her company before) comes out and essentially betrays all of us by essentially saying that the issues aren't real.

I know that it's an unpopular opinion to say that women can be and are a part of the problem, but I really see these types of articles as being quite damaging.

Self confidence won't prevent you from being treated like a sex object by your peers at conferences. It won't do anything to resolve the issue that women are judged more heavily on past accomplishments where men are judged for their potential. It's great that confidence has worked for you, but this is a dangerous message to spread to the people erecting the barriers to begin with.

It feels more empowering to pretend gender doesn't matter, but eventually there will be a situation where it does and the truth will matter in how you deal with it.

Might as well feel empowered the other 99% of the time.

This argument that knowledge makes you fearful is a terrible argument and a total projection. Why do you assume that my acknowledging the existence of sexism means I feel disempowered? That's just weird. I see the sky; it's blue; I go about my day. I see sexism; it's there; I go about my day. I see poverty on the bus, war in Syria when I read the news, and climate change when I go hiking in the woods. Sucky things are true and suck. Your idea that they must lead to fear and disempowerment is certainly not universal. It's part of the human condition to see sucky and unfair things and then grapple with those truths. It's what life on earth is about. Avoiding knowledge is also what some humans do, but I don't see how that's to be celebrated.

I've encountered various barriers, and I've encountered some of the same barriers more than once when my tactics to overcome them have failed. Ceasing to acknowledge that they're there doesn't mean that I'm sitting around somewhere paralyzed with worry. Throwing away all knowledge of what's failed, what's worked for other people, and so on and so forth and replacing it with More Self Confidence! however, I suspect would ultimately be just as ineffective as puttering around as a defeated emotional mess.

Maybe it's helped her that she's a product designer rather than a developer. That's the sort of career that we get mistaken as having. Maybe living in the Bay area helps. Either way, the article is a very simplistic view that realistically is tactic number one for many of us when we start to realize in first year computer science what we've gotten ourselves into. It doesn't take long at all for it to be clearly apparent that it's not going to be enough.

I love this line. I'm a guy, and I find it disturbing how much weight some women put into their looks.

I'll give a simple message: most men I know don't give a two flying hoots about how you look as long as you aren't north of 250 pounds and don't wear enough makeup to supply a circus.

We really don't care. We don't find looks like that attractive. We forget what you wore last night and if asked, we honestly don't know or don't care if your ass looks fat in those pants. We know you have a closet full of clothes and 15 pairs of shoes, but we couldn't recount how a single item looks.

So what do we find attractive? Stand up tall, smile, and tell a good story or joke. Shine and be happy to own such a wonderful spirit in a wonderful body. We aren't as visual as the media makes us out to be once we are past 19 years old.

I've come to the conclusion that women pay far more attention to how other women look and dress, makeup, and look good to impress each other. The guy just thinks you are beautiful and wants to know you because you are, by the shear nature of your body and person, a beautiful and attractive being. Unfortunately, this message will be lost in the ether of the internet and forgotten, never reaching the women who need to read it the most.

I'm over 30. The most wonderful day of my life was when I woke up one day, looked around, and found nearly every woman on earth attractive in her own way. Just don't stress about it girls: if you spent nearly the time studying, socializing, and working hard as you glamming up, you'd be very far ahead any guy you will ever meet in your life. Time is the most precious resource you have, and wasting time on looks is the largest and mostly costly sink I've observed.

Lovely.

But unfortunately the evidence doesn't really support you. Taking hiring as a proxy for success, numerous studies have shown that more attractive people find it easier to get hired. [1] is fairly old, but a reasonable overview of the research.

I'm male (and over 30) and I've found I've been much more successful at a wider range of things since I started paying attention to what I looked like and what I wore.

[1] http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/orsp_shahani-denning_spring03.pdf

Clearly attractiveness is in parts a choice, how you dress, how you comport yourself, how healthy your body appears etc. Those choices signal positive qualities. For example dressing in a way that is perceived as attractive could signal social intelligence (being able to read society's unwritten rules about the semantics of clothes), having a body that appears healthy shows the ability to defer gratification, future orientation etc. All of which are qualities that may be helpful in various kinds of jobs.

You only have to receive so much unwanted sexual attention in business settings, and so much skepticism towards your abilities as a professional, before you start to realize how difficult it is to find a balance between well groomed and dressed, but not too attractive, but not too unattractive either because you look less credible if you're slobbish, but also you should look a bit cool and casual and start-upy, not too stuffy and businessy, and so on.

To compact the issue, as we're talking about women in tech here, we likely aren't spending hours on end in front of the mirror as everyone here is hyperbolizing. Finding the perfect outfit to land funding is a lot less fun for us than you seem to think.

Younger people are generally more attractive than older people, all else being equal. This is okay to say. It's not sexist. Don't encourage people, whatever their gender, to compete in that arena with people younger than them as if they're on equal footing. Tell them to accept that and find a way to get the attention they deserve without desperately driving down their self-esteem.

It's not sexist.

It's just plain wrong.

Some men also put lots of emphasis and thought into their looks. Why specify women, and why does it matter that you're a guy? Why are we even talking about what you and your friends like in women? Why steer it towards "men" vs "women" stereotypes?

The point is not "specifying women" so much as specifying how many women think and responding to the very line written in the article. It was a post of support for what I think are words of wisdom.

I'm guessing you read the article, who's subject so happened to be about women, therefore, I don't see you can take my post as an attack when it was clearly complimentary to the spirit of the post.

Why talk about what my friends and I think? Why the hell not? Maybe people's perceptions are screwed up and it helps to set the record straight.

A significantly greater percentage of women care about their looks than men.

To be fair the trend seems to be for men to also take as much care about their looks, leveling a bit the field.

Some of my coworkers might take half an hour or more every morning to properly groom and prepare. Some took it as time they spent caring about themself, and the time in front of the mirror is less than the 2 hours you might spend in front of the TV at some other time. 'Wasting' time on looks seems to ignore that looks is not just some chore that is pushed on you by the society, looking good can be a hobby in itself.

This article is very good—and probably takes particular care—to not frame any concerns in the context of how men consider women, only how women (and men) consider themselves.

I can imagine a situation where the roles were reversed and you said "I find it disturbing how much weight some men put on their cars". These are neither good nor bad things (plumage-competing like this is baked into our DNA) but take it for what it is.

That sucks.

Lean In is just as much for men to read as it is for women. Gender is a component in nearly every interaction in today's business world. Race still is too.

Sheryl does not attempt to say that women cannot overcome these challenges, but instead she simply takes a no bullshit approach by admitting that those challenges do exist. Why kid ourselves and pretend they don't? Recognizing that those challenges exist is our biggest hurdle as a society, eliminating them is much easier from that point forward.

"What Stanford does not teach young white men like Midas, in the course of teaching them about startups, is that everything they are being taught—about breaking rules, taking risks, and not asking for permission—works especially well for them, and often only for them, because of who they are, what they look like, and all the associations their appearance does and does not carry. On University Avenue, white men who break things look, in Midas’ words, “cute”, not delinquent or scary, and this is why privileged young men are brought to Palo Alto in droves to learn and practice the business of what Facebook calls “breaking things”. At every turn this breaking of things is celebrated and encouraged. If you’re not breaking things in Palo Alto, you’re not doing your job.

"…unless you’re not a young white man.

"If you happen to live two more miles down University Avenue from where Midas trespassed camp boundaries, you are living in East Palo Alto, which is the economic and racial counterpoint to blond-boy-celebrating, millionaire-laden Palo Alto. And if you live in East Palo Alto and you decided to walk across the 101 freeway to University Avenue, to the same cafe that Midas walked to from the other side, you’d be taking a risk, but not one likely to be rewarded." (https://medium.com/on-startups/521cb394fda2)

True, but also, you'll get attacked by those people who find their gender/race/looks/weight/height/... as a comfortable excuse for not meeting their own expectations.

I'm not dismissing gender (and other) issues here. It's just that I believe that the OP's approach of seeing herself as a human being in the pursuit of her own happiness is a much better way to live your life than to define yourself as an oppressed victim. (Accordingly, I'm not commenting on gender issues, just giving the props to the OP.)

Really? People said this? After reading this, I'd totally want to fund you, even more, because you have conviction and are clearly not afraid of speaking what you think in the face of what might be an unpopular opinion. Of course, I have no money, so my opinion doesn't count for much.

I respect people a lot more who have an intrinsic internal motivation to do something great, and damn what other people think.

I should add: even if that means that those people aren't as financially successful as a "lean in" person.

I'm not a woman, but I'm a minority in Tech and most of the same scenarios and situations that apply to gender are very applicable based on ethnicity as well.

Let me take the points I contest one by one

If anything if you show up as a woman in a room of 200 men you have an advantage at the networking event not the disadvantage

This is how it feels like at the time, and if all you're trying to do is pitch your business or get an introduction to someone more serious, this might even be correct. The real problem here is when you're not taken seriously as a techie, and dismissed where someone who looked like you but was white or male might get that benefit of the doubt that gets them seed funding.

I would rather they introduce these women as “Amazing People” rockstars in their field. Can you imagine an article Men in Tech — Meet the men behind Dropbox and Airbnb? No. That article will more likely get titled — Meet 2 of the most powerful CEO’s in Silicon Valley changing the way we think about sharing

This argument has a parallel in what people in the Black community call the "exceptional Negro effect". People look at folks like Obama, Colin Powell, Neil deGrasse Tyson and wonder why you can't be like them. After all if those people could succeed against all the odds why can't you? right?

The problem is the "all the odds" part, and also the fact that these people are "exceptional". They're really good at what they do and with some serious willpower and perseverance they can ascend to the tops of their professions. The problem is that, by definition, these people are 1% of the entire population.

The rest of the world, trying to make it will usually be average/above average and in those tiers the "against all the odds" becomes just that tad bit more difficult when you factor in gender/ethnic biases.

Point being. If you're actually rockstar, you can probably ignore gender issues because you're in the 1% and likely to succeed anyway. The unfortunate thing though is that people like this can't really identify with the average woman/minority, because their brilliance effectively insulated them from things that less fortunate people who look like them had to go through.

I mean, why do you think that the people who break barriers in gender and race are ALWAYS exceptional? Isn't it odd that a person just couldn't be average at what they did and break that barrier? that they have to be that much better than comparable white people/men to do it?

I never have any expectations that the person I am talking to is going to value me less because I am a woman — because I myself do not value myself less because I am a woman

This is great. But again, just because you don't have that expectation doesn't mean that reality won't slap you in the face eventually ... and rudely. I'm not saying every male is out to get every woman in tech, but there are subtle biases that can really hold a person down, like having to be that much better than a person with your same skills just to get the same recognition that they get

Men and powerful women would not bring gender into this equation and instead would come up with all the reasons they thought the meeting went well or didn’t go well. This is about personal self confidence and empowerment. If you stop looking for gender obstacles you will probably see other aspects of your situation with new clarity

Again, this is a great technique. And I've always applied it, because I want to succeed. Nothing brings you down faster than thinking something out of your control like race or gender is holding you back. So whenever I encounter something like it. I file it away for reference and think of a way around my problem, just like she suggests.

But when I do make it, I plan to keep an eye out for ways to make sure that the things that were obstacles for me based on ethnicity are NEVER an obstacle for anyone else if I can help it.

To close. I understand what she is trying to say, I've been that person myself (fuck a handout, screw someone helping me get over). But i've since realized that the subtle biases in friends hiring friends, helping other friends get hired, or cognitive errors that people make all the time, can add up to very powerful forces that make life just that much more difficult for a non-outlier-brilliant woman/minority trying to make it in Tech.

Every generation there's a set of young people who discover "self-confidence is enough" and "discrimination is over." Over twenty or thirty years some groups of them realize that this is not true.

As you say above, the technique of not looking at gender and looking for what I personally can improve or do differently is the rational and utilitarian course of action. It is, after all, the only thing I can do as an individual. But there are those situations that keep coming up now and then that don't have a solution -- for me. For other people, there is a solution. For me, it becomes clear that I simply need to go elsewhere.

Fine. I can be as flexible as I need to be. But when it's, say, meeting with a venture capitalist and I'm always not quite what they're looking for, or if it's meeting with my grad school advisor and always being too talkative and emotional, or etc. -- and nothing I do changes this! -- and I have to work around venture capitalists/advisors/etc... it really slows me down, because I also have to work around the same sh*t that everyone else does.

"During the interview, I relayed my own experience in building a tech company in the Deep South of the US. When I was looking for funding for my second start-up, local VCs wouldn’t even return my phone calls, despite the fact I had previously helped build a public company with $120m in revenue. In Silicon Valley, an entrepreneur with credentials like mine would have had dozens of VCs knocking on his door. But the advice other successful Indians gave me was to have “a white guy” on my management team to deal with the VCs. So that’s exactly what I did. I went on to raise millions in venture capital."

On one hand you see the drive that ultimately made Wadhwa a successful man, but you also see the compromises that he had to take to get there that are completely abominable to certain groups (American born minorities specifically).

Even more important is this point which goes directly to Chloe's disdain for Sandberg's call for women to come together as a group

"When we researched why Indians had been successful, we learned that they had gained significant benefits from the social and professional networks they had formed. These helped to mobilise the information, know-how, skills and capital needed to start technology firms. The Indian networking organisations were among the most vibrant and active professional associations in the region, with memberships ranging from several hundred in the newer associations to over one thousand in the established organisations."

This method of forming niche groups to support gender and ethnic minorities has proven to be successful, which is why I was so disappointed to see Chloe dump on it.

But people team up to accomplished shared ends; they're constantly "pushing in". Startups are often done by people who work crazy hours to gain something they didn't have before. We build formal corporations (weird sorts of communes) and informal networks. Because we live in a social context; money ceases to make any sense absent certain social relations.

So it's only rational for people to form teams where members support each other through shared difficulties. (http://leanin.org/circles/) (Would be even better if it's not just for those whose problem is the glass ceiling, but also the dark basement.)

I don't think she was saying that at all. Her perspective seemed very rationalist-consequentialist. I think it was something vaguely like this:

> Woman in a room of 200 men? Use it to your advantage! Handouts? Use those to your advantage too! Use every possible advantage, and don't limit yourself to only taking the help-outs reserved for "women."

> Identifying with a label only serves to limit which others you'll think of banding with to achieve greater things: to look specifically to women for camaraderie is to pit men as implicit adversaries, unable to be considered for use in any Egalitarian mutually-beneficial way.

> Every human being is another potential ally on your way to the top; don't prejudice yourself against putting in the work on anyone! (They might be prejudiced against you, but as long as you have a set limit on how much goodwill you're willing to spend on someone, they either convert or they don't; it doesn't matter whether they were biased one way or the other to begin with.)

If brown skinned Indians aren't discriminated against in tech, why are brown skinned Mexicans (apparently) discriminated against? Does such skin color based discrimination really exist in the Valley?

Given their relative population size in the USA, Indians seem to be well(or even over) represented in the software industry as VCs, founders, employees etc. As are Chinese for that matter. Are Chinese discriminated against in tech?

How can someone in software discriminate against Mexicans/South Americans, but not (East) Indians (if said discrimination is supposed to be primarily based on skin color)? Mexicans and Indians are often mistaken for each other. I've had Mexican Americans start conversations in Spanish with me.

Is there any evidence of race based (vs gender based , or even age based) discrimination in the tech industry? I've never encountered it (due disclosure: Indian, have lived in the USA, was never discriminated against or made to feel unwelcome).

Genuine question. Thanks in advance

Same for women vs men. In western culture at least, computer / tech is not appealing to most women. It's pictured as a geek / nerd thing.

Do you know a lot of men interested by midwifing ? (sorry for the stereotype) No, because in our culture it's a women thing.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, nor that there is no discrimination at all, but IHMO it's more a consequence than a root cause of the lack of women in tech.

There's a book, "How the Irish Became White". I haven't read it and therefore can't offer a recommendation, but there's definitely literature out there. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Ignatiev)

The racial system is a form of warfare and social conditioning. Various alliances shift for political ends.

I wrote a long comment speculating why this could be, but I don't have enough evidence to support my ideas.

I think it comes down to reputation. In SV, Indian developers have a very, very good reputation which is made very visible by some stars in the programming and VC fields.

I suspect the lack of those visible success stories affects other ethnic groups negatively.

If that's the case, we should see more people doing this sort of thing than working in industries controlled by biased gatekeepers? Do we?

Or is it the case that our educational system is crippling the aspirations of our children before they are even old enough to make an app?

There is no gender, color, language or height barrier to becoming successful and wealthy. The barrier is the spoon one is born with. Born with a silver spoon in your mouth? That means you've got money, which means you've got spare time to become good at something, meet other wealthy, well-connected people and keep your ears open to job opportunities. Then a job offer comes up it's not because you're really, really great at what you do (although it might help), it's more that people who are in a hiring position at tech companies are, generally, other not-at-all poor people that you most probably grew up with or can identify with.

Born with a dirty, wooden spoon in your mouth? Then your childhood is going to be spent trying to take care of your other six siblings while both your parents are out trying to clothe and feed the household. And the baby that's due in two months. There will be no money to invest in tech stuff, no time in which to learn several languages and no interest from the parents in letting you ignore your chores. There will be no frat parties, playing golf or fucking around on the stock market with extra money for shits and giggles because your CEO friends all do it as well - because you will never become a CEO. You lack the money, the connections and the self-confidence needed to become a person of import.

Some people get rich, and some people die trying to feed themselves.

lmao

look, I'm very down with pointing out class and wealth play gigantic roles, but you shouldn't open up contending other things don't as well.