Backlash?
They're just jealous of the rich!
/sarcasm
Facebook's second-in-command Sheryl Sandberg faced a backlash on her free-content network after the Lean In organisation she founded advertised for an unpaid intern with "social chops". Sandberg, the author of Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, makes a lot of noise about how women should follow in her footsteps and …
Sounds like some people feel that someone is being forced to work no dosh.
I don't see that.
Not all.
> Unpaid work, be it internships for young women or volunteer positions for older moms, is exploitive.
Oh noes, we can't have that!
Here is the idea though: If you are unskilled, working unpaid *can* be a plus. This concept goes right over the head of the social studies students.
It can be a plus alright..but who for? Anyone from a poorer background is almost automatically excluded no matter how well qualified or intelligent. Anyone not from a well off background just can't afford to do a year's unpaid work to flesh out their CV. It's just another case of the rich helping their own and discriminating against everyone else.
What crock of excrement! For all the same Feminists that have been hounding men for equal pay for ages to turn around and say that they themselves can ask for unpaid "volunteers" with a skill set that ought to earn them $80k a year minimum?
This is the very height of hypocrisy! Anyone who took the job unpaid should be forever branded as a wimp/fool/moron.
Sandberg should be hauled up on charges for failing to pay minimum wages on ANY intern position whether it was advertised as unpaid or not.
Let me remind you all.....Lincoln freed the slave and slavery is against the law in almost every country. In my opinion, that makes unpaid internships illegal.
I'm sure this was meant as an educational experience meant to provide real-life knowledge of exploitation, yet in a nurturing and caring environment!
Either that, or this was an opening at an organization devoted to flogging the work of one rich and privileged exec looking for other privileged kids (who can afford to work 4 months til the end of the year with no pay) with the unintended goal of perpetuating inequality instead of combating it.
I've come to the conclusion that many feminists appear to misunderstand what equality actually means. I wrote about it (at some length) when the lose the lads mags stuff hit the news.
I'm sure most are reasonably well intentioned, but theres little point fighting for something if your tactics undermine it.
'If you look closely enough, Sandberg's definition of "women" is a pretty narrow one, even if it does float the conceit about the "right to equality at work".'
Surely it is depth of definition, not breadth, that enables it to float a conceit?
But you do interest me. There is no way in the world that I'm going to read Lean In, so can you enlighten me as Sandberg's definition of "women"? Does it vary considerably from (say) the IOC's or the NCAA's?
This has nothing to do do with equality in work or any of the regularly touted 'climb the ladder of success' blurb - this type of behavoiur has no gender boundary, it is simply learned & passed on to the next individual with an over inflated sense of entitlement. It's pathological, it's inequitable, and occasionally shows it's aberrance in public with snafu's like this for all to see. Jump on them at every observance, folks.
If I understand this article correctly:
A posh and arrogant minion
of a rich and arrogant minion
of a very rich and arrogant scallywag
wanted to get someone to work for them free of charge?
What's the big deal?
We give you Facebook for free, all the time, forever, so why can't you, serf friend, contribute a few years of your life to making us richera good cause?
Send them a short note saying you ask for a buck for a short note in return. Pocket the buck.
You don't get rich by giving money away, occasionally, you need to step on toes, and if those toes happen belong to a highly skilled "intern" with no pay, then so be it.
As long as nobody finds out, that is.