Talk:Lean In

Link to definition

This is a US Idiom and should be defined for non-US readers. I've noticed some WP articles have a link to a Wiktionary definition.
"lean in (to something)"
To incline or press into something. You have to lean into the wind when you walk or you will be blown over. As you walk into the wind, lean in a little bit. The north wall of the barn leans in a little. Is it going to fall?
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 46.208.56.251 (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The Nation's The Curve review

Its also been reviewed by The Nation which is supposed to be pretty influential on the American centre left. Shouldn't that be mentioned? http://www.thenation.com/blog/180031/does-feminism-have-class-problem

Incorrect number of pages noted on the "Pages" section of the infobox

I am reading the Kindle edition of the book along with the audiobook narrated by Elisa Donovan and the total pages shown in my Kindle app for Windows is 3870 which, if we round it off, gives us 387 pages, not 288 like it says in the infobox. I will add that as a reference. --Marce 19:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fandelasketchup (talk • contribs)

"Lean in?"

I keep hearing this phrase, and I have no idea what it means (other than that it refers to the title of the book...but presumably, it refers to the title of the book for a reason, else the book could just as easily be called "Purple Xylophone"). I thought the Wikipedia article would explain this cryptic phrase, but apparently not. I would say that's a pretty essential bit of info for this article to include (as I suspect many of the people perusing this article, would be doing so for much the same reason I was). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinOKeeffe (talk • contribs) 18:34, 26 March 2015‎

I read the book. There are various critiques of it. Ideally, someone would take a reviewer's interpretation of the phrase, quote it in this article, then cite the source. Here is one review I found without reading it. There are others. I agree that someone should say what the phrase means in this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Merriam-Webster credit Sandberg's book with creating the phrase. JezGrove (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of the book

The main article cites reviews of the book from the Washington Post, NPR and the New York Times, and the general impression one gets from them is that they recommend the book but would not want the reader to take its message too literally because a) the author is blind to her privilege and status, b) for a feminist manifesto written in 2015, it fails to seriously explore issues of intersectionality, and c) it puts the majority of the blame on women and not corporates — as corporate America's leader, Sandberg doesn't argue for sweeping reforms in workplace practices as much as for women to "lean in."

However, the criticism section fails to mention the positives of the book at all, or the part where the authors of the review pieces mentioned above would give the book to their own daughters and nieces. From a cursory reading of the Wikipedia page, one leaves with the idea that Sandberg is an evil, anti-feminist with a corporate agenda, wielding outdated second-wave feminist ideas and private jet trips. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.120.99 (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The reviews section is supposed to reflect the available reviews. A lot of reviews are presented here and this book's reviews have been developed on Wikipedia with more care than in Wikipedia articles on many other books. If this article is framing positive reviews as negative, or neglecting to present positive reviews and instead presenting negative reviews, then there is a problem. If the existing reviews are presented here, and those reviews happen to be negative, and consequently Wikipedia presents the negative reviews of critics then there is no problem. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the available sources with due weight.

Do you think that Wikipedia is misrepresenting the cited sources? Do you know of some positive source which ought to be cited here, but is not here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The most comprehensive reviews I've come across, i.e. the more in-depth think pieces that have discussed Sandberg, her book, and her organization, appear to be overwhelmingly -- and validly -- critical for all the reasons cited here. What's more, Sandberg refuses to counter or even address the criticism, which does little to shake the doubts as to her true intentions with Lean In. Take a look at the Baffler article I cited in 2013 to begin this section; Susan Faludi's piece represents diligent, ethically done investigative journalism, and her reaching out to Sandberg for comment during the research phase was, as she reports, met with a rather insultingly coy, deflective response. If any positive review exists that begins to address the array of concerns raised in these other reviews about Lean In, please add it. Fetald (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

I see that the POV tag inserted last June by 117.216.120.99 still remains (see "Criticism of the book", above). While I understand this editor's rationale, the argument presented seems a bit exaggerated: "...one leaves [this article] with the idea that Sandberg is an evil, anti-feminist with a corporate agenda, wielding outdated second-wave feminist ideas and private jet trips." Nonetheless, I'm more interested in removing the POV tag than I am in arguing with that editor.

Can I get some feedback on possible solutions to this? My plan is to pare down some of the "Reviews and criticism" section -- particularly under "Intersectionality: race, class, and sexual identity" -- with an eye toward redundancies, overly detailed and/or speculative content, and consolidating similar ideas where possible. The section does run long for an article like this one. Overall, I believe the goal here should be to:

- keep any negative criticism directly relevant, i.e. limited primarily to well-researched/reasoned sources that don't just disagree with the brand of feminism that Lean In puts forward, but that call the book to task for actual misrepresentations, or for inadequate/selective attention given to the very things it specifically claims to address

- include more positive assessments, i.e. expand on the book's perceived benefits to readers as illustrated by well-researched/reasoned sources, particularly those sources offering assessments that either implicitly counter or directly address the existing criticism of which there appears to be a great deal, deserving of attention.

I'll work on this when I get a chance, but I'm asking for thoughts in the meantime on how to best get rid of this pesky POV tag. These counter-arguments to the criticism I'm asking for...has anyone found any? I do believe that the Susan Faludi Baffler piece cited at the beginning of the criticism section (by me, under previous username 'fetald') goes a long way in establishing the actual tone of valid critical reception to the book, as it presents what appear to be genuinely inquisitive, unassuming, highly specific, important questions and concerns related to key omissions and conflicts of interest -- issues that, as far as I know, still have yet to be publicly addressed at all by author Sandberg or supporters of her work. Dalfet (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed the problem template with the note "there are no active discussions about criticism". Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lean In. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527010140/http://gawker.com/5992636/theres-a-special-place-in-hell-for-you-sandberg-publicist-messages-to-harsh-lean-in-reviewer to http://gawker.com/5992636/theres-a-special-place-in-hell-for-you-sandberg-publicist-messages-to-harsh-lean-in-reviewer

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)