Am I the only one who had some, um, lively discussions about Sheryl Sandberg with friends and family over the Thanksgiving weekend?

Even for people who don’t typically follow Facebook or its COO, the (increasingly dire) reports about the social media giant in the past few weeks have proved hard to ignore.

It started, of course, with the New York Times’ blockbuster expose of the company’s attempts to downplay the Cambridge Analytica and Russian meddling scandals—and the disclosure that it hired shady comms firm Definers to discredit anti-Facebook demonstrators. Sandberg, who was strongly implicated in the bad behavior, initially denied knowing about the firm. Then, the day before Thanksgiving, she admitted that she had in fact “received a small number of emails where Definers was referenced.”

The one-two punch of the report, followed by Sandberg’s Definers flip-flop, unleashed a flood of coverage of the COO. She should resign! She’s taking the fall for Mark Zuckerberg! She’d be out of a job—but Facebook can’t fire her because she’s a woman! She’s “forever tainted!” She can’t be both a “towering feminist” and a “formidable chief operating officer!”

For me, making sense of all the reveals and hot takes has meant learning to hold two seemingly contradictory beliefs at the same time. One: Sandberg’s gender matters, and is inextricable from the way she’s being judged. Two: Sandberg’s gender doesn’t matter, and has nothing to do with the fact that she’s accountable for her actions as COO.

Some commenters have asked what the newly tarnished view of Sandberg, arguably the world’s best-known businesswoman, means for professional women. But I’m not convinced that’s the right question. When we talk about representation and the power of putting women in C-suite roles like chief operating officer, the saying often is: “If you can see it, you can be it.” In reality though, we can’t be Sheryl Sandberg. She’s a singular case—as much a celebrity and cultural icon as an executive.

Perhaps the better question for working women is what can we learn from Sandberg and her apparent fall from grace? Here’s one thing I’ll take away: True equality means leaning in to power—and bearing the full weight of the repercussions for using it unwisely.

今年感恩节周末，我大概不是唯一一个和亲朋好友热烈谈论谢丽尔·桑德伯格的人。

最近几周，有关社交媒体巨头Facebook的报道持续升温，即使平常不留意这家公司及其首席运营官桑德伯格的动向，也很难视而不见。

当头炮显然是《纽约时报》的一篇重磅爆料。文中披露，针对Facebook“泄密门”涉事公司剑桥分析以及俄罗斯利用其平台干预美国大选，Facebook正在努力淡化丑闻的后续影响，还聘请了行迹可疑的政治公关公司Definers，诋毁抗议Facebook的人们。虽然桑德伯格与不当行为密切相关，刚开始却否认知道Definers。在感恩节前一天，她承认确实“收到过少量推荐Definer的电邮”。

在桑德伯格对Definers的问题改口后，《纽约时报》的报道左右开弓，掀起了媒体批评桑德伯格的热潮。有人高呼，桑德伯格应该辞职！有人认为，她在替Facebook的首席执行官马克·扎克伯格背锅。有的说，她应该走人，但因为她是女性所以Facebook不会解雇她。有的声称，桑德伯格背上了永远无法抹去的污点。有的指责，她不能既当“杰出的女权主义者”，又当“令人敬畏的首席运营官”。

在我看来，要想理解所有爆料和热门报道，会得到两个自相矛盾的结论。一是，桑德伯格身为女性的事实很重要，而且与外界对她的评判密不可分。二是，桑德伯格是不是女性并不重要，与她身为首席运营官应负的责任无关。

桑德伯格无疑是全球最知名的商界女性，一些评论者也开始追问，她的名誉受损对职场女性有何影响。我认为这个问题不一定准确。现在谈到女性担任首席运营官之类最高管理层的代表性和影响力时，我们经常会说：“别人能做到，你也有机会做到。”但现实中，我们不可能成为谢丽尔·桑德伯格。她是一个孤例，因为她不但是高管，还是名人，也是文化偶像。

对职业女性来说，也许更适合的问题是，从桑德伯格跌落神坛的经历中可以汲取什么教训？我得出的结论是：真正的平等意味着面对权力同样要精益管理，一旦轻率使用权力，就要承担后果。（财富中文网）

译者：Pessy

审校：夏林