Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Philip Greenspun Reviews “Lean In”

blogs.law.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 112 posts

Re: Philip Greenspun Reviews “Lean In”

#61

Post by SPSteinbeck »

jackowayed wrote: post #42
temphn wrote: post #31

This is utterly devastating and long overdue. Sandberg makes $845 million in a year (at a company she didn't found), lives a charmed life, and is promoted aggressively by men...yet has managed to convince herself that the world is/was biased against women. But even Greenspan is prevented by polite convention from making the obvious point: women and men have different chromosomal structures, lifespans, organs, and hor…

The reason that people are berated for suggesting inherent differences is that there's so much more to the story. Almost nothing derives purely from genes; it's a complex interaction of genes, epigenetics (environmental and hereditary factors other than genes that control which genes are active), and socialization. Males and females are treated extremely differently from birth . Literally, in the very first day. Thus…

Your "societal factors" explanation is just kicking the can down the road, for societal factors derive from the aggregate of the individuals making up a society. Humans didn't arrive on earth with the social structures you perceive as "sexist" already in place. Humans created these social structures in the civilizations they built, many times over and in isolation from each other. That you can observe that and not notice the common factor - our humanness, our biology - is no different than a religious fanatic able to conclude the earth must indeed be 5,000 years old in light of all evidence to the contrary.

Your assertion that Western society has concluded we want "equality between the sexes" is bizarre. If western society has indeed concluded that, who are all these mysterious sexists I keep hearing about? What you mean is an ignorant and detached elite (of whom Ms Sandberg is undoubtedly a member) have decided there and vision of the good is universal and any resistance (bigots, sexists, etc.) must be destroyed.

Re: Philip Greenspun Reviews “Lean In”

#62

Post by nullymcnull »

WildUtah wrote: post #47
zurn wrote: post #4

People should read (if they must) this in context of Greenspun's rather fanatical political ideology. His blog has plenty of samples, I don't want to link to it.

Fanatical political ideology? Greenspun's a moderate New England Republican. That's getting to be a pretty rare thing these days, but it's hardly fanatical.

I realize that the US is bizarro world when it comes to the political spectrum, but in most places we definitely hear alarm bells going off when an author cannot help but trot out the dead horse of 'Socialism!' in response to something as mild as the suggestion that the US could improve upon its depressingly shitty standards for mat leave.

I'm no fan of Sandberg, but this review is so overburdened by the author's ideological baggage that it is nearly unreadable.

Re: Philip Greenspun Reviews “Lean In”

#63

Post by macspoofing »

corin_ wrote: post #55
macspoofing wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never read anything of Greenspun, other than this review. I don't know, or particularly care, what his "fanatical political ideology" is. As far as I'm concerned this essay is perfectly capable of being judged on its own merits. I am however greatly annoyed whenever someone thinks they are doing everyone else a favour by trying to dissuade others from reading an opinion (especially through vague ad hominem attac…

I'm in the same boat as you with regards not not having read anything else he's written (I glanced at a few of his political essays this morning but didn't read any thoroughly), so this comment is a general thought not specific to Greenspun. Surely every article/essay has the potential to be read differently in the context of who wrote it. If it was on the subject of, for example, Israel/Palestine, would you not want…

>Whether you agree or disagree with one side or the other, context is often relevant.

Is it really, in this case? If Greenspun was a Neo-Nazi who was serving time for killing 12 people, would it really have changed the content of this review?

I understand it would probably colour your perception of him, and certainly that's what the OP was going for, but I still think that this review stands on its own.

Re: Philip Greenspun Reviews “Lean In”

#64

Post by corin_ »

macspoofing wrote: post #63
corin_ wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in the same boat as you with regards not not having read anything else he's written (I glanced at a few of his political essays this morning but didn't read any thoroughly), so this comment is a general thought not specific to Greenspun. Surely every article/essay has the potential to be read differently in the context of who wrote it. If it was on the subject of, for example, Israel/Palestine, would you not want…

>Whether you agree or disagree with one side or the other, context is often relevant. Is it really, in this case? If Greenspun was a Neo-Nazi who was serving time for killing 12 people, would it really have changed the content of this review? I understand it would probably colour your perception of him, and certainly that's what the OP was going for, but I still think that this review stands on its own.

I haven't actually read this review, it's not something that interested me, but I do find that (for better or for worse) I judge content on its author. Yes, if he was a Neo-Nazi who had killed 12 people, it would make me lose respect for his opinions.

Re: Philip Greenspun Reviews “Lean In”

#65

Post by jdminhbg »

softbuilder wrote: post #20
natrius wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My rephrasing of that is, "If the working world is systematically biased against women, was it biased against Sandberg? Why did her male bosses and mentors choose her to be the exception? Would female bosses and mentors have made Sandberg's success easier to achieve?"

Hmm. I guess I got the gist that you've expressed. That makes me feel a little better, thanks. That last sentence was the puzzler.

Here's the point of the last sentence, which I had to read a few times as well:

When she was 27 years old, a man hired her to be Chief of Staff for the United States Secretary of the Treasury. What, if women were in charge, she'd have not been biased against and gotten that job when she was 17 instead?

Re: Philip Greenspun Reviews “Lean In”

#66

Post by jseliger »

sinnerswing wrote: post #19
therealarmen wrote: post #6

Those who enjoy this review will also enjoy Philip's review [1] of "Straight from the Gut" by Jack Welch (former CEO of GE): If you want to learn the names of every person who ever worked at GE during Jack Welch's 40 years there, you'll find this book invaluable. If you want to learn something about what made GE successful, however, good luck picking out the few saplings of wisdom from the thick forest of names. Golf…

His reviews would've been a lot funnier if Arsdigita didn't crash and burn years ago. >He doesn't get into the question of whether the investors from 1980 are happy now that they own less than 70 percent of the company. They should be happy considering GE's value rose 4000% during Jack Welch's tenure at GE.[1] When Jack Welch became General Electric’s CEO in 1981, the company was worth about $14 billion. When he reti…

His reviews would've been a lot funnier if Arsdigita didn't crash and burn years ago.

On the other hand, it's famously uncertain as to whether that's his fault: http://waxy.org/random/arsdigita/ . I haven't seen a compelling rebuttal of this narrative.

Re: Philip Greenspun Reviews “Lean In”

#67

Post by ucee054 »

EliRivers wrote: post #46
temphn wrote: post #31

This is utterly devastating and long overdue. Sandberg makes $845 million in a year (at a company she didn't found), lives a charmed life, and is promoted aggressively by men...yet has managed to convince herself that the world is/was biased against women. But even Greenspan is prevented by polite convention from making the obvious point: women and men have different chromosomal structures, lifespans, organs, and hor…

yet has managed to convince herself that the world is/was biased against women. Wait, are you saying it isn't/wasn't?

I'll say it. It isn't and wasn't and if anything is biased against men. Details here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

http://owningyourshit.blogspot.co.uk/

Re: Philip Greenspun Reviews “Lean In”

#68

Post by jbattle »

michaelochurch wrote: post #60

The problem that I see has little to do with the fact that Sandberg is a woman. It's that the Corporate System (yes, there is such a thing) deliberately promotes people who are smart enough to run operations but don't have what it takes (which is more of an out-of-band creativity than raw IQ) to figure out how people and organizations really work. Then its pre-selected leaders go on to peddle Success Crack that tells…

> You will never be a Sheryl Sandberg if you've dealt with a true workplace bully, and at least 90% of people get hit at least once in the first 10 years. Your reputation and career history are too damaged, and you really can't "start over" because every achievement is age-graded.

So do you really believe that workplace bullies are so universally powerful that it is quite nearly impossible to prevent them from ruining one's career?

I recognize your posts immediately and appreciate your iconoclasm, but this assertion seems quite at odds with what I've seen. I've worked with, for and around a few bullies/assholes (though certainly not at every job). I've seen literally one or two people get caught in the maelstrom and be unable to escape, but most people either work around the jerks. Sometimes if it gets bad enough people change jobs (probably getting a raise to boot)

Re: Philip Greenspun Reviews “Lean In”

#69

Post by theorique »

michaelochurch wrote: post #60

The problem that I see has little to do with the fact that Sandberg is a woman. It's that the Corporate System (yes, there is such a thing) deliberately promotes people who are smart enough to run operations but don't have what it takes (which is more of an out-of-band creativity than raw IQ) to figure out how people and organizations really work. Then its pre-selected leaders go on to peddle Success Crack that tells…

If you know a disgusting secret on a Harvard MBA alumnus (which is not that hard, because as unethical people become increasingly arrogant, they get worse at hiding it) you can use it to get a powerful recommendation, get in to Harvard Business School, and make influential friends.

[citation needed]

No doubt this is true in an abstract sense, but is there any recorded data on this (reports of scandals, etc) or is this just speculation.

Post reply on HN