That the difference is glossed over so blithely makes me skeptical.
> "I haven't read lean in personally..." - point invalid.
Why are you're weighing in and saying this is a terrible argument when you can't provide any substantial or supporting evidence.
I am weighing in because I care immensely about women in tech and feminism and disagree with the point of view portrayed in the letter.
Am I not allowed to share my opinion because I haven't read the book she's violently disagreeing with? Just because I haven't read the book doesn't mean I haven't seen Sheryl speak numerous times and don't understand her point.
And, also, what is your definition of "success"?
Perhaps she's experienced some level of success, thanks for correcting me/acknowledging the hole in my argument, but I think it's safe to assume that she hasn't experienced the same level of success as Sheryl.
First of all, credibility. Sheryl's words have made it so far because she has succeeded in her career and is trying to explain to others what she thinks you should do to get where she is. The author of this letter hasn't experienced success and therefore shouldn't have enough of an idea what it takes to succeed to agree or disagree with Sheryl.
Second of all, I don't think the author of the letter even knows what Lean In means. It seems like her interpretation of the definition is to lean in to your work and grind through 80 hour weeks such that you don't have time to take care of yourself, be happy, or even do your own household chores. I haven't read Lean In personally but my impression was that the definition was more along the lines of ignoring all of the existing gender bias and having the self-confidence to set goals and go for them.
Perhaps the goal you set is to be happy, or to do your laundry once a week, or to stay fit, or to have a happy relationship. Your goals don't need to be corporate/career ones. I don't think the goals of the letter's author necessarily contradict Sheryl's points.