“1% Feminism” by Linda Burnham
Linda Burnham’s essay critiques Sheryl Sandberg’s lean-in feminism (refer to Sandberg’s TED Talk for a
summary of the main ideas of lean-in feminism) as a corporatist feminism for the privileged top 1% of
women, and takes particular issue with Sandberg’s claim that lean-in feminism is a movement for all
women, 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
and prerogatives of the 1%, women who are at or near the top levels of their professions, the corporate
world or government. Unfortunately, blind to its own limited field of vision, it tends to speak in the name of
all women, universalizing that which is profoundly particular.”
Burnham describes lean-in feminism as a conservative “trickle-down” type of feminism, which aims to
achieve broader gender equity through the benevolence and empathy of women who make it to top
leadership positions. The success of these women leaders will inevitably, according to Sandberg, expand
opportunities for all women, even those in low-paid service sector jobs. Certainly, women often shared
similar experiences of gender oppression and inequity and can empathize with each other’s struggles, but
Burnham is not so sure that the interests of women at the top of the economic ladder align with those of
women at the bottom. As she states, “certainly we ought to consider whether women in the C-suites – the
CEO’s, CFO’s and COO’s – are the ones best suited to craft policy for those working the aisles at Home
Depot.” For instance, if Home Depot had a female CEO, does that mean that she will necessarily make
working conditions and compensation better for the low-waged women workers at Home Depot retail
stores? (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 wants
women to dream big, but lean-in feminism essentially asks women to adapt to the corporatist ethos of
getting ahead instead of envisioning bolder changes like mandating paid parental leave policies to ease
the 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 most
affected by a particular form of inequity. It calls on each of us to combine with others and to commit our
better, more selfless, justice-loving selves to building a society that lifts up the full humanity of all who
have suffered discrimination, indignities, oppression, exploitation, abuse.” Reducing the broad social
justice vision of feminism to ” tips on career advancement is not a way to jump-start a movement, but
instead 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 work
at Facebook, and her time there overlapped with Sheryl Sandberg, who continues to be Facebook’s Chief
Operating Officer (COO) to this day. Eventually, Losse climbed to the upper ranks of the Facebook
corporate hierarchy where she got to sit next to Sandberg and Mark Zuckerberg (co-founder and CEO) at
the “privileged center of Facebook’s operations.” Yet, surprisingly, instead of continuing to reap the
substantial compensation and benefits of her high position at Facebook, Losse decided to quit. As she
puts it, “I decided to leave Facebook because I saw ahead of me, by Zuckerberg’s and Sandberg’s own
hands, an unending race of pure ambition, where no amount of money or power is enough and work is
forever.”
Losse also recounts large inequities in pay between male and female employees at Facebook, which she
experienced 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 Sandberg
in her book Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, “More female leadership will lead to fairer
treatment for all women.” If we are to take Sandberg at her word here, then the gendered pay inequity
experienced by Losse and other women at Facebook would not have even existed. The fact that
gendered pay inequities did indeed exist under Sandberg’s watch, according to Losse, shows that Lean In
would 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 executive
herself, Sandberg seems to be more invested in teaching women how to “lean in” and work even
harder—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 how
to follow her.” But she is certain that it is not a feminist movement aimed at achieving fairer treatment for
all women. Ultimately, as Losse concludes about the book, “as a manual for navigating the workplace, it
teaches women more about how to serve their companies than it teaches companies about how to be
fairer 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 in
leadership and management positions and pushing back against derogatory labels of “bossiness” that
have 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 male
counterparts. However, since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and the protests against racism of the
past year, there has been a backlash against the celebratory culture of girlbosses and what Amanda Mull
calls the “myth of corporate female empowerment.” High-profile female corporate leaders and
entrepreneurs–formerly much lauded for heading or starting their own companies–were increasingly
being taken to task for abuses of power, including racist discrimination against employees of color. Some
of these female corporate leaders, most of whom were white and college-educated, were compelled to
step down and apologize for their abusive management practices.
As Mull writes, the widespread suffering and large-scale social problems brought to light by the pandemic
hastened the end of the girlboss era. “For most people, an equal-opportunity reckoning for those in power
offers a glimmer of hope. America’s workplace problems don’t begin and end with the identities of those
atop corporate hierarchies—they’re embedded in the hierarchies themselves. Making women the new
men within corporations was never going to be enough to address systemic racism and sexism, the
erosion of labor rights, or the accumulation of wealth in just a few of the country’s millions of hands—the
broad abuses of power that afflict the daily lives of most people.”
QUESTIONS
1
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 a
summary of the main ideas of lean-in feminism) as a corporatist feminism for the privileged top 1% of
women, and takes particular issue with Sandberg’s claim that lean-in feminism is a movement for all
women, 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 and
prerogatives of the 1%, women who are at or near the top levels of their professions, the corporate world
or government. Unfortunately, blind to its own limited field of vision, it tends to speak in the name of all
women, universalizing that which is profoundly particular.”
Burnham describes lean-in feminism as a conservative “trickle-down” type of feminism, which aims to
achieve broader gender equity through the benevolence and empathy of women who make it to top
leadership positions. The success of these women leaders will inevitably, according to Sandberg, expand
opportunities for all women, even those in low-paid service sector jobs. Certainly, women often shared
similar experiences of gender oppression and inequity and can empathize with each other’s struggles, but
Burnham is not so sure that the interests of women at the top of the economic ladder align with those of
women at the bottom. As she states, “certainly we ought to consider whether women in the C-suites – the
CEO’s, CFO’s and COO’s – are the ones best suited to craft policy for those working the aisles at Home
Depot.” For instance, if Home Depot had a female CEO, does that mean that she will necessarily make
working conditions and compensation better for the low-waged women workers at Home Depot retail
stores? (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 wants
women to dream big, but lean-in feminism essentially asks women to adapt to the corporatist ethos of
getting ahead instead of envisioning bolder changes like mandating paid parental leave policies to ease
the 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 most
affected by a particular form of inequity. It calls on each of us to combine with others and to commit our
better, more selfless, justice-loving selves to building a society that lifts up the full humanity of all who
have suffered discrimination, indignities, oppression, exploitation, abuse.” Reducing the broad social
justice vision of feminism to ” tips on career advancement is not a way to jump-start a movement, but
instead cuts away at its heart.”
What are your thoughts on Burnham’s critiques of Sandberg’s lean-in feminism?
2
DISCUSSION PROMPT 2: “Feminism’s Tipping Point: Who Wins from Leaning In?” – Kate
Losse
Kate Losse, the author of the article “Feminism’s Tipping Point: Who Wins from Leaning In?” used to work
at Facebook, and her time there overlapped with Sheryl Sandberg, who continues to be Facebook’s Chief
Operating Officer (COO) to this day. Eventually, Losse climbed to the upper ranks of the Facebook
corporate hierarchy where she got to sit next to Sandberg and Mark Zuckerberg (co-founder and CEO) at
the “privileged center of Facebook’s operations.” Yet, surprisingly, instead of continuing to reap the
substantial compensation and benefits of her high position at Facebook, Losse decided to quit. As she
puts it, “I decided to leave Facebook because I saw ahead of me, by Zuckerberg’s and Sandberg’s own
hands, an unending race of pure ambition, where no amount of money or power is enough and work is
forever.”
Losse also recounts large inequities in pay between male and female employees at Facebook, which she
experienced 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 Sandberg