"1% Feminism" by Linda Burnham"1% Feminism" by Linda Burnham

Linda Burnham's essay critiques Sheryl Sandberg's lean-in feminism (refer to Sandberg's TED Talk for asummary of the main ideas of lean-in feminism) as a corporatist feminism for the privileged top 1% ofwomen, and takes particular issue with Sandberg's claim that lean-in feminism is a movement for allwomen, regardless of what kind of employment they have or their class position:

"1% feminism is all about the glass ceiling, never about the floor. It addresses the concerns, anxietiesand prerogatives of the 1%, women who are at or near the top levels of their professions, the corporateworld or government. Unfortunately, blind to its own limited field of vision, it tends to speak in the name ofall women, universalizing that which is profoundly particular."

Burnham describes lean-in feminism as a conservative "trickle-down" type of feminism, which aims toachieve broader gender equity through the benevolence and empathy of women who make it to topleadership positions. The success of these women leaders will inevitably, according to Sandberg, expandopportunities for all women, even those in low-paid service sector jobs. Certainly, women often sharedsimilar experiences of gender oppression and inequity and can empathize with each other's struggles, butBurnham is not so sure that the interests of women at the top of the economic ladder align with those ofwomen at the bottom. As she states, "certainly we ought to consider whether women in the C-suites – theCEO's, CFO's and COO's – are the ones best suited to craft policy for those working the aisles at HomeDepot." For instance, if Home Depot had a female CEO, does that mean that she will necessarily makeworking conditions and compensation better for the low-waged women workers at Home Depot retailstores? (Sandberg herself is the COO or Chief Operating Officer of Facebook.)

Burnham also calls lean-in feminism a "dream-crushing feminism." She notes that Sandberg wantswomen to dream big, but lean-in feminism essentially asks women to adapt to the corporatist ethos ofgetting ahead instead of envisioning bolder changes like mandating paid parental leave policies to easethe childcare burdens of all working parents. "Every progressive social movement worthy of the name,"Burnham exhorts, "is ultimately about a liberatory project that extends outward, beyond those mostaffected by a particular form of inequity. It calls on each of us to combine with others and to commit ourbetter, more selfless, justice-loving selves to building a society that lifts up the full humanity of all whohave suffered discrimination, indignities, oppression, exploitation, abuse." Reducing the broad socialjustice vision of feminism to " tips on career advancement is not a way to jump-start a movement, butinstead cuts away at its heart."

"Feminism's Tipping Point: Who Wins from Leaning In?" by Kate Losse"Feminism's Tipping Point: Who Wins from Leaning In?" by Kate Losse

Kate Losse, the author of the article "Feminism's Tipping Point: Who Wins from Leaning In?" used to workat Facebook, and her time there overlapped with Sheryl Sandberg, who continues to be Facebook's ChiefOperating Officer (COO) to this day. Eventually, Losse climbed to the upper ranks of the Facebookcorporate hierarchy where she got to sit next to Sandberg and Mark Zuckerberg (co-founder and CEO) atthe "privileged center of Facebook's operations." Yet, surprisingly, instead of continuing to reap thesubstantial compensation and benefits of her high position at Facebook, Losse decided to quit. As sheputs it, "I decided to leave Facebook because I saw ahead of me, by Zuckerberg’s and Sandberg’s ownhands, an unending race of pure ambition, where no amount of money or power is enough and work isforever."

Losse also recounts large inequities in pay between male and female employees at Facebook, which sheexperienced herself while working there. At the time, Sandberg also worked there in a top position, but did

not challenge the salary inequities between men and women at her own company. According to Sandbergin her book Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, "More female leadership will lead to fairertreatment for all women." If we are to take Sandberg at her word here, then the gendered pay inequityexperienced by Losse and other women at Facebook would not have even existed. The fact thatgendered pay inequities did indeed exist under Sandberg’s watch, according to Losse, shows that Lean Inwould rather focus on changing women’s presumed internal barriers to career success than companies’committing to more equitable pay structures for all employees. Certainly, as a leading female executiveherself, Sandberg seems to be more invested in teaching women how to “lean in” and work evenharder—which ultimately benefits their employers more than improving the lot of women workers.

Losse does acknowledge that Sandberg’s Lean In “provides some helpful advice for young women in howto follow her.” But she is certain that it is not a feminist movement aimed at achieving fairer treatment forall women. Ultimately, as Losse concludes about the book, “as a manual for navigating the workplace, itteaches women more about how to serve their companies than it teaches companies about how to befairer places for women to work.”

"The 'Girlboss' and the Myth of Corporate Female Empowerment" by Amanda Mull"The 'Girlboss' and the Myth of Corporate Female Empowerment" by Amanda Mull

In 2014 the term "girlboss" was introduced to the American public as a way of celebrating women inleadership and management positions and pushing back against derogatory labels of "bossiness" thathave been leveled at powerful women. Men in positions of power typically are not denigrated for being"bossy," whereas women with power over others are more frequently criticized for acting like her malecounterparts. However, since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and the protests against racism of thepast year, there has been a backlash against the celebratory culture of girlbosses and what Amanda Mullcalls the "myth of corporate female empowerment." High-profile female corporate leaders andentrepreneurs–formerly much lauded for heading or starting their own companies–were increasinglybeing taken to task for abuses of power, including racist discrimination against employees of color. Someof these female corporate leaders, most of whom were white and college-educated, were compelled tostep down and apologize for their abusive management practices.

As Mull writes, the widespread suffering and large-scale social problems brought to light by the pandemichastened the end of the girlboss era. "For most people, an equal-opportunity reckoning for those in poweroffers a glimmer of hope. America’s workplace problems don’t begin and end with the identities of thoseatop corporate hierarchies—they’re embedded in the hierarchies themselves. Making women the newmen within corporations was never going to be enough to address systemic racism and sexism, theerosion of labor rights, or the accumulation of wealth in just a few of the country’s millions of hands—thebroad abuses of power that afflict the daily lives of most people."

QUESTIONS1

DISCUSSION PROMPT 1: 1% Feminism – Linda Burnham

Linda Burnham's essay critiques Sheryl Sandberg's lean-in feminism (refer to Sandberg's TED Talk for asummary of the main ideas of lean-in feminism) as a corporatist feminism for the privileged top 1% ofwomen, and takes particular issue with Sandberg's claim that lean-in feminism is a movement for allwomen, regardless of what kind of employment they have or their class position:

"1% feminism is all about the glass ceiling, never about the floor. It addresses the concerns, anxieties andprerogatives of the 1%, women who are at or near the top levels of their professions, the corporate worldor government. Unfortunately, blind to its own limited field of vision, it tends to speak in the name of allwomen, universalizing that which is profoundly particular."

Burnham describes lean-in feminism as a conservative "trickle-down" type of feminism, which aims toachieve broader gender equity through the benevolence and empathy of women who make it to topleadership positions. The success of these women leaders will inevitably, according to Sandberg, expandopportunities for all women, even those in low-paid service sector jobs. Certainly, women often sharedsimilar experiences of gender oppression and inequity and can empathize with each other's struggles, butBurnham is not so sure that the interests of women at the top of the economic ladder align with those ofwomen at the bottom. As she states, "certainly we ought to consider whether women in the C-suites – theCEO's, CFO's and COO's – are the ones best suited to craft policy for those working the aisles at HomeDepot." For instance, if Home Depot had a female CEO, does that mean that she will necessarily makeworking conditions and compensation better for the low-waged women workers at Home Depot retailstores? (Sandberg herself is the COO or Chief Operating Officer of Facebook.)

Burnham also calls lean-in feminism a "dream-crushing feminism." She notes that Sandberg wantswomen to dream big, but lean-in feminism essentially asks women to adapt to the corporatist ethos ofgetting ahead instead of envisioning bolder changes like mandating paid parental leave policies to easethe childcare burdens of all working parents. "Every progressive social movement worthy of the name,"Burnham exhorts, "is ultimately about a liberatory project that extends outward, beyond those mostaffected by a particular form of inequity. It calls on each of us to combine with others and to commit ourbetter, more selfless, justice-loving selves to building a society that lifts up the full humanity of all whohave suffered discrimination, indignities, oppression, exploitation, abuse." Reducing the broad socialjustice vision of feminism to " tips on career advancement is not a way to jump-start a movement, butinstead cuts away at its heart."

What are your thoughts on Burnham's critiques of Sandberg's lean-in feminism?

2DISCUSSION PROMPT 2: "Feminism's Tipping Point: Who Wins from Leaning In?" – KateLosse

Kate Losse, the author of the article "Feminism's Tipping Point: Who Wins from Leaning In?" used to workat Facebook, and her time there overlapped with Sheryl Sandberg, who continues to be Facebook's ChiefOperating Officer (COO) to this day. Eventually, Losse climbed to the upper ranks of the Facebookcorporate hierarchy where she got to sit next to Sandberg and Mark Zuckerberg (co-founder and CEO) atthe "privileged center of Facebook's operations." Yet, surprisingly, instead of continuing to reap thesubstantial compensation and benefits of her high position at Facebook, Losse decided to quit. As sheputs it, "I decided to leave Facebook because I saw ahead of me, by Zuckerberg’s and Sandberg’s ownhands, an unending race of pure ambition, where no amount of money or power is enough and work isforever."

Losse also recounts large inequities in pay between male and female employees at Facebook, which sheexperienced herself while working there. At the time, Sandberg also worked there in a top position, but didnot challenge the salary inequities between men and women at her own company. According to Sandberg

in her book Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, "More female leadership will lead to fairertreatment for all women." If we are to take Sandberg at her word here, then the gendered pay inequityexperienced by Losse and other women at Facebook would not have even existed. The fact thatgendered pay inequities did indeed exist under Sandberg’s watch, according to Losse, shows that Lean Inwould rather focus on changing women’s presumed internal barriers to career success than companies’committing to more equitable pay structures for all employees. Certainly, as a leading female executiveherself, Sandberg seems to be more invested in teaching women how to “lean in” and work evenharder—which ultimately benefits their employers more than improving the lot of women workers.

Losse does acknowledge that Sandberg’s Lean In “provides some helpful advice for young women in howto follow her.” But she is certain that it is not a feminist movement aimed at achieving fairer treatment forall women. Ultimately, as Losse concludes about the book, “as a manual for navigating the workplace, itteaches women more about how to serve their companies than it teaches companies about how to befairer places for women to work.”

What do you think of Losse’s article and issues it discusses?