[...] Current poster-woman for corporate feminism, billionaire Sheryl Sandberg represents what we might call 'oblivious' feminism: the kind that has to ignore global financial crises, government austerity policies and ingrained sexism in order to argue that feminism is a kind of moral or existential decision [...] When Sandberg describes an 'ambition gap' amongst women in corporate environments, she cannot possibly ask herself what might be wrong with capitalism itseelf such that many women have no or little interest, or ability, to bridge such a 'gap'. The gap is less the problem than the system that depends upon the gap, and no amount of over-conforming and 'playing the game' is going to get rid of it.

[...] feminism will never be one of the 'disruptive' values of Silicon Valley so long as Silicon Valley is principally a machine for producing wealth for the few. To the extent that someone who so benefits from that business culture espouses feminism, it will be ruthlessly friendly to the corporate environment in which it is exercised.

Ambition is tempered not just by individual whim, but by the codes and messages people pick up on throughout their lives, fractured by gender, class, race, sexuality and levels of disability. Telling women to ignore their inner barometer of their own likely success is hardly a solution. A woman may be as ambitious as she wants, but the people hiring and firing have their own preconceptions, in a society that maintains that women are less decisive, logical and driven. If a women's ambitions exceed the ambition her superiors feel is appropriate, wanting can do barely anything--you're still stuck on the pay grade your managers have attributed to you.

[...] Sandberg never envisages an image of a woman as anything other than a worker, or a wife and mother. The alpha successful women in Lean In are always bouncing between boardroom and babies, and the Lean Backs are daydreaming about promotions, or longing for the perfect husband and fretting over imagined biological clocks. There is no room, in the corporate feminist world, for a civil life, a political life, an emotional life outside of the nuclear family unit, or even downtime. All time is accounted for, and if a woman is not putting in her full attention at work, the only possible explanation is that she is dropping out to procreate, rather than that--heaven forbid--she might not like her job, or may have outside pursuits that sustain her interest more fully.

The importance of "aspiration" over equality both focuses on individual success, and in turn attributes failure to individuals, rather than a system designed to promote a few, transferring wealth to the "aspirational" at the expense of many, many others. Rather than admit that life chances, and the lack thereof, stifle ambition and outright block financial and professional achievements for poorer citizens, a society that promotes "aspiration" must rely on outliers. Interviews with the newly rich from humble and disadvantaged beginnings reveal a tendency not to rail against the injustices systemic inequality perpetuates, but instead to turn inward, focussing on individual achievement as proof that these barriers do not exist for those who pull themseles up by their bootstraps.

Corporate feminism tells a story that is convenient to capitalism. If personal aspiration is the key to success for women, and emancipation is to be won on an individual basis for you and your hardworking family, then solidarity and the prospect of structural and legal chance becomes a pointless distraction. Focusing on individual success stories, rather than structural inequality, is politically helpful to the right-wing squeeze on living standards across Europe and the United States. If you're languishing at the bottom of the corporate ladder rather than hammering on the glass ceiling, blame yourself, not the power structures that conspire to shrink your life choices. [...]

[...] The subtext--that women are by their nature more reserved, less risk-taking, more responsible--props up the idea that the problem wasn't the economic system, but purely the individuals pulling the levers responsible for plunging most of the globe into a long-reaching recession.

[...] a lot of women were still in high-ranking positions in US banks and government, and still failed to regulate risky and illegal behaviour, not because of their gender, but because of the accepted narrative that capitalism flourishes when it is unrestrained. The free market is all. There are not simply two cultures in each society: male and female. Class, race, education and social status, as well as gender, all combine to build individuals and have compete interests.

[...]

[...] The employment of some women didn't act like an air freshener, subtly sweetening the culture. Establishments don't tend to welcome outsiders if they aren't willing to play by the rules, and fit into existing structures.

[...] "Super Mums" appeared in glossy magazine features declaring that having seven children, a magazine catalogue-esque husband, a minimalist yet chic house, and a directorship or twelve was effortless, aside from a few light strategical negotiations. Super Mums are invariably wealthier than the readers of weekend supplements, and when asked about how they manage, they never respond: "I hired a number of women to work for low wages, cleaning and running my household, carrying out life admin, organising my diary, and raising my children." Mothers on minimum wage who manage to keep a job, raise children, and run households are never deemed Super Mums, only Irresponsible Mums for having the audacity to have children in the first place.

[...] Daring to hire from outside the traditional pool while non-traditional yourself, merely ensures the prejudicial stereotypes applied to your race or gender come back to haunt you.