What would I do?

Sheryl Sandberg spoke at the Barnard graduation and I know she meant to be inspirational but as a college educated female and also a working mom, I am personally offended by the undertones in her speech.

It is my belief that this style speech is not inspiration but more damaging to a young woman because it's double sided nature. Look I'm not a hippy or bra burner but I take a lot of pride in the woman that I have grown to become. I am college educated (albeit barely), working at a kick ass company trying everyday to do a kick ass job, a happy wife, enthusiastic mother and homemaker. I only wish I had more time in the day to do more of it. I do struggle every day with how to balance work and family. As I advance in my career I am constantly unsettled by the pull away from my family but I love them both...however only one of them cares for me as much as I do them. I don't think it is any failure of women because they are not running the world within 30 years of reaching a majority of college attendees... I think it's simply physics. There simply isn't enough time to be Suzy homemaker 100% and a CEO 100%..something has to give and I think the greatest gift of women's lib is that we have that choice to do whatever we want. So if Sheryl Sandberg wants to be #2 in running the Facebook empire so be it...but if I or anyone I know wants to run their house empire, that's just as important because it's fulfilling WHAT YOU WANT. I don't think she should shame a younger generation of women into trying to fix a failure that never existed. If we want to be moms, CEO's, middle managers or beach bums - that's all ok. That's the beauty of choice and free will. Why do somen who are "socially or economically successful" spend so much time critizing those who do no choose the same path? who cares?

What I find damaging about her comments is that under the guise of inspirational it has an undertone of "if you don't change the world as I have defined it, you have failed too." All these pressures for girls to grow up to be CEOs and Mary Poppins have created a situation for complete disaster. You can't win either way and these external pressures create a sense of constant failure here or there. I can't tell you how many times I broke down because we had to order takeout for dinner instead of cooking it because I had too much work to do.

What's interesting is that for all the centuries that men were the primary workers, they never really got to spend a lot of time with their families because they were busy working. For some reason when women entered the workforce, no one thought about how we might have that same experience. And is climbing the corporate ladder supposed to make you happy...did anyone ever ask men if they were happy for all those centuries having the financial burden placed solely on them? I'm sure many are relieved to share the burden but also feel their role squeezed as women do more and males roles are not socially redefined to be equally broader.

The problem is...when we told girls they could be whatever they wanted to be...we forgot to say they didn''t have to be everything at the same time.

Some comments to specific snippets in her speech.

Women became 50% of the college graduates in this country in 1981, 30 years ago. Thirty years is plenty of time for those graduates to have gotten to the top of their industries, but we are nowhere close to 50% of the jobs at the top.
That's fine but many of those women who are in their 50's now having graduated 30 years ago were typically routed to different areas of study than they were today. Additionally social norms back then were for women to not be the career chasers they are today. I would say that the kids coming out of college today have a completely different idea of what is possible even compared to my generation...although even in my generation I know tons of directors, VPs whatever. Also the only way women can be in those positions is for us to redefine the male role so that it is socially acceptable to be the primary caregiver, nurturer of the family while the woman is out there. It's not physically possible for both people to be chasing at the same time - the time constraints alone would make your existence not a relationship but two single people that happen to share some space and time.

Studies show very clearly that in our country, in the college-educated part of the population, men are more ambitious than women.
Does having a family not count as ambition? Is ambition only measured by the job title you have and the size of your paycheck? My ambitions may not be tied to running the country but that's only because I only have patience for the toddlers I share gene pool with versus all of America which can seem like a bunch of whiney toddlers. And so what if men are more competitive than women...most women think that is stupid anyways.

I hope that you — yes, you — each and every one of you have the ambition to run the world, because this world needs you to run it. Women all around the world are counting on you...So go home tonight and ask yourselves, 'What would I do if I weren’t afraid?' And then go do it."
What if I am changing it one person at a time in my family, is that not good enough? And truthfully when I first came across this question...my answer was. "If I was not afraid, I would leave corporate America and spend more time with my family and not worry so much about money or keeping up. To be free of the external pressures and scrutiny of society" When I was growing up all I wanted was more time with my parents to come to school activities with me. I am proud of my working mother and she didn't graduate from college or run the world - she shaped the paths for myself and my brother and is a huge influence on my daughter and that's more than enough. I don't believe you need to run the world to change it. Change, even in it's smallest form can have huge impact and is often more pure.