Prepare to Vomit

emp Are you an American woman? Yes? Then your main problem in life must be the comparative difficulty of being appointed CEO of a major corporation. So obvious.

And how do you solve this problem? Well, you work harder!

Such is the “feminist” pose about to be launched by the utterly vile creature known as Sheryl Sandberg, whom we TCTers have met before. She is the scionette of a Florida eye-surgery empire who converted her inherited advantages talent and labor into a career as a leading data-scraping executive within the corporate marketing juggernaut.

According to The New York Times, Sandberg is about to unleash her solipsistic “project,” which will apparently be called “Lean In.” The idea is that she will be coaching those who join on how to do what she did. That, of course, was to work hard! [Of course!] And now, all her greatness and effort is becoming a social movement!

“I always thought I would run a social movement,” Ms. Sandberg, 43, said in an interview.

Holy pancakes, Batman, these fuckers are way more gonzo than you can even imagine. Orwell is flat out of a job.

11 Replies to “Prepare to Vomit”

  1. I wrote a long-ish comment, but then I deleted it – “I”, “run”, and “social movement” in the same sentence? Where do you even begin?
    However, this type of cluelessness unfortunately is also quite prevalent among the middle class progressive, who often recommends that the poor can improve their lot by being “more motivated” to better educate their children and themselves.. (actual quote…)

  2. What the hell is “Lean In” but a even more idiotic ripoff of MSNBC’s fantastically dumb “Lean Forward”? Would this moron have made such a similar statement in the 60s? No, there was a least a “class” tinge in the counterculture that kept the rich rabble cowed, but eventually the latent corporate affiliation of the New Left had them becoming cyber libertarian trash like these grifters who have utterly no social brake on their rancid effusions.

  3. Diane, that’s an interesting piece, though also quite cryptic. The author mentions a third wave of feminism. What, pray tell, would that be? I thought that’s what we’ve been waiting for.

    I’m tempted to make a crack about Jacobin writers, who seem to specialize in striking “radical” poses with extremely blunt edges…

  4. The author mentions a third wave of feminism. What, pray tell, would that be? I thought that’s what we’ve been waiting for.

    I’m not sure, what she meant when she referred to first through third waves of feminism, in the third section of her intro.

    I posted the link for the first section of her commentary (which seemed the bulk of her piece, to my mind), regarding the handful of Sheryl Sandberg types being portrayed as the new role models, and norm, for women, which commentary I understood and wholeheartedly agree with.

    I don’t know what you meant when you wrote: What, pray tell, would that be? I thought that’s what we’ve been waiting for. At any rate, I don’t really know, for a fact, what she was referring to about the third wave of feminism, possibly she’s sarcastically referring the Sandberg and her ilk?

  5. I have no idea what a 2nd or 3rd wave feminism is, or if it in fact matters at all:

    The fundamental failure of feminism and the women’s lib movement more generally was the fact they were primarily driven by clueless middle class – but class-blind – women, who only fought for a place at the table with the big boys.

    The predictable result? A total squandering of the transformative potential of the women’s movement and perverting into nothing but a struggle for women to be exploited and abused just as everybody else – rather than use this energy to insist on more humane reorganization of labor and its returns in society. Congratulations, mission accomplished.

    Still surprised that Gloria Steinem was banrolled by the CIA????

  6. Diane, I apologize for not being clearer. My scorn was for that author’s use of the concept of “third wave feminism,” which clearly is no wave at all, and not feminism, either.

    As for feminism, I’m pretty grateful for it, Marla. Take a look at this, for instance. That was real, and is now swept away.

    As for third wave feminism, everybody who’s serious about it knows that the next wave is exactly the same as the next wave of civil rights/anti-racism: class. They killed MLK when he turned in that direction, and it is deeply anti-feminist for creeps like Sandberg and Naomi Wolf to be passing off their solipsistic farts as having any connection whatsoever with such a hugely important issue.

    Ann Crittenden, btw, is something of a yuppie, but she explains the main issue facing US women quite well.

  7. The domestic oppression of the 1950s and the 1960s is yet another reason to channel feminist struggles directly into capitalism, considering that it was among the reasons it happened to begin with – a post war economic boom and glut of products, combined with a major swell in the workforce thanks to abating of war needs and returning soldiers. Oh, I have an idea: let’s shove the women away in suburbs, that are far away from everything, and require quite a bit of upkeep, even as they allow and require the purchase of various appliances. Then, let’s change the fashions into non-functional restrictive clothes that practically do not allow much movement, emphasize the most time-consuming cooking recipies, and ta-da, problem solved…

    What a certain variety of feminists seem to rile against seems like a very particular and extremely brief period in history. For the most part, both women and men had it equally shitty, and participated in the workforce on similarly shitty terms for the most of history…

Comments are closed.