Successfully Opinionated

Reynolds Thompson
Dr. Whitener
English 101
30 October 2013

Successfully Opinionated

As a child, everyone dreams of being an astronaut, movie star, or superhero when they grow up. Although unrealistic, these aspirations are what provide a drive to succeed before fully forming a personalized definition of success. The word “success” is described as “the fact of getting or achieving wealth, respect, or fame”(Webster), which seems to be accurate, but “wealth, respect, and fame” mean different things to different people. So, “success” is also defined as “the correct or desired result of an attempt”(Webster), which points to the fact that success means different things to different people. Take Sheryl Sandberg for example; the Chief Operating Officer of Facebook, Sandberg clearly has her own definition of success. She spoke at a TED conference for women and urged them to become more active in the workplace and start working towards a position of power similar to her own. The only flaw in this argument is the fact that some women do not necessarily want to work full time. Rather, success has a completely different meaning to them. A meaning that may be just as time consuming as a full-time executive position. While Sandberg does speak for a good cause such as women’s rights, she seems to have a shortsighted outlook on the possibility that not all women have the same aspirations she does.
As Sandberg begins her talk, she speaks about how lucky women are today for being able to make career choices rather than having to live in the world women used to be subject to. Obviously, this is a very true point and should be noted as something to be thankful for. She goes on to explain that there is a very serious problem that women still have to face today. The percentage of women in high-level jobs or political positions is very low and is not improving. This is, in fact, a problem, but Sandberg misses one key piece to this argument. What if the women that hold these positions are the only women that actually want these positions? The facts can elaborate on this:

A survey taken this summer by the Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project asked working mothers whether they would prefer to work full time or part time. A strong majority of all working mothers (62%) say they would prefer to work part time. Only 37% of working moms would prefer to work full time. Working fathers have a much different perspective. An overwhelming majority (79%) says they prefer full-time work. Only one-in-five say they would choose part-time work. (Cohn)

These statistics add an interesting dynamic to the entirety of Sandberg’s hypothesis. All of the sudden, almost every point she makes now has 62% less meaning. However, this does not keep her from speculating further.
Sandberg stresses the point that in order to make it to where women and men are fifty-fifty at the top of any industry, women must stop taking a back seat and demand more respect. This statement is assuming that women are submissive in the workplace because men dominate professional jobs and act superior. While this could be true, it is a fairly bold assumption. She backs up her statement with a story about two women that came to a meeting and sat along the wall rather than at the table with the men. It would be one thing if these women held higher positions than the men, but Sandberg acknowledges the fact that these two women did not play as important of a role in their company as the men did. She described the man as a “very senior government official”(Sandberg) and the women as “pretty senior in the department”(Sandberg). This instance has nothing to do with gender roles or sexism, it purely a matter of normality. It is customary for higher-ups to have more benefits, such as sitting at the table. Not only is it customary, but also it would not make sense for the less qualified professionals to be able to take the seats of the more qualified officials. Those more qualified make more decisions within the company, so it makes sense that he/she would be front-and-center during the meeting. The fact that Sandberg uses this as an example of inequality in the workplace almost perpetuates the very inequality she is speaking out against. She is inadvertently drawing a line between professional men and women by pointing out differences between the two. The only way to reach true equality would be to stop dividing professionals into men and women, but instead look at all workers as just workers. Of course, Sandberg just wants to see women succeed in the workplace and it is hard to place blame on that, but her dream of industry reaching an even split between professional men and women may not be possible.
Sheryl Sandberg hypothesizes that a perfect division between men and women in the upper-level workplace would make the world a better place. While this may be true, the problem that still exists is that it may be impossible. Based on the statistics of women that actually want to work full time and the percentage of women in the labor force, there would have to be a much higher success rate for women becoming executives than men. This is strictly because of the physical number of men vs. women in the labor force. If 35% of women and 65% of men work in a given industry, and the ideal number of them that become executives is fifty-fifty, then there would be a much higher rate of women getting promoted because of their low number. Sandberg makes it seem as if making things equal is going to change the amount of women in the professional workforce, but she overlooked so many important variables. The reason there are fewer executive women is far more complex than Sandberg seems to realize. At the end of her speech she says: “We are not going to get to where 50 percent of the population -- in my generation, there will not be 50 percent of [women] at the top of any industry. But I'm hopeful that future generations can”(Sandberg). It is easy to say something like that before diving deep into the roots of why the division looks like it does.
It is not to say that Sandberg does not makes plenty of valid arguments throughout her talk, but she could have done a much better job doing research and examining the true roots of the problem. She seems very self-righteous (with every right to be), and it is easy to see how she formed such a strong opinion on how to save the world with very little proof. It all comes back to how each and every individual defines success. If Sheryl Sandberg is at the top of her world, then it is understandable that she would try to spread her success to other people. However, such a bold statement should not be based on such little proof. No one has the right to tell anyone else how to succeed, but everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, some should just keep it to themselves…












Works Cited
Cohn, D’Vera. “The Harried Life of a Working Mother.” Pew Research: Social & Demographic Trends (2009): n. pag. Web. 1 Oct. 2009.
Sandberg, Sheryl. “Why We Have Too Few Women Leaders.” Online video clip. TED. TED, 22 Dec. 2010. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.
"Success." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.