Transformative Mentorship

Powell McCormick said that Rice was the mentor who had the most impact on her life. She and her husband have six daughters, and during COVID, they began to realize the critical need for purposeful mentorship across society.

“It went way past high school graduations and proms that they didn't get to attend,” said Powell McCormick of her daughters’ experience during the pandemic. “It was those first seminal years of having a professor that believed in you, of having a boss that helped you and gave you tough love. And so, we started talking to the girls about the fact that Dave and I wouldn't be where we are today without people who really believed in us and invested in us.”

She started asking people she admired to pinpoint one or two people who had invested in them and contributed to who they are. Her husband recounted a high school experience where his football coach had made a difference in his life by naming him co-captain on the team.

“Dave had never thought of himself as a leader. And that single act is the reason my husband got into West Point – through that coach and being on that football team,” Powell McCormick said.

Advocating for Freedom, Democracy

Sandberg noted that Powell McCormick came to America at age 5 from Egypt and spoke no English. She asked her, “How did mentors contribute to your success?”

Powell McCormick mentioned Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a senator from Texas, “the only woman I'd ever seen in a senior role, to be honest, in Texas at that time.”  Hutchinson took an interest in the career growth of a young Powell McCormick.

“She would mentor me and as I was graduating and heading to law school, she said, ‘I think you should come intern for me for a year in Washington.’”

She never forgot what the senator told her: “If you don’t take a risk on yourself, no one else ever will.” Eventually, Powell McCormick worked on the Hill and then in the White House where she met Rice, then Secretary of State. They were both there on 9/11, and Rice asked her to expand her responsibilities. “It changed everything.”

During that time, Powell McCormick recalled an inspirational moment with Rice on a visit to a Middle Eastern country where Rice was asked by a foreign leader about whether she was going to “preach freedom and democracy” to that country’s leadership.

Rice replied, “Your highness, how can I come and preach to you when not that long ago my own country counted my ancestors as three-fifths of a man. Today, you are looking at the first black Secretary of State of the United States of America, and the difference between my country and yours is that we will always be stronger because we hear the will of our people.”
 

In that moment, Powell McCormick said, Rice had taught her so much – “fierceness, grace, and humility.”

In their book, the couple interviewed successful leaders across industries who benefited from their mentors and shares their real-world stories of how their career trajectories were impacted. The book outlines four key elements of transformative mentorship – trust, shared values, meaningful commitment, and instilling confidence.

Powell McCormick said, “Being an entrepreneur, you’re on an island all by yourself. It’s really scary, and particularly we learned this is true for female entrepreneurs outside of the United States.”

She recalled working with a female entrepreneur in Egypt at the American University in Cairo who had an abusive husband and who had secretly started a taxi business (and hid this from her husband).

Powell McCormick told her, “This is incredible. You’ve got to buy another car. You’ve got to do all of this. And so, we helped her with capital, we helped her with education. When she finally told her husband, she thought he was going to freak out and divorce her.”

But then the woman showed him how much money she was making. “Today he is her CFO (chief financial officer) and reports to her,” Powell McCormick said.

‘She Could Do It’

In addition to Rice, the book features stories from some of the most influential leaders across industries, including Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft, Tory Burch, the founder of the women’s fashion empire, Hollywood producer Brian Grazer, as well as political leaders such as Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore.

Powell McCormick spoke about an Afghanistan businesswoman, Rangina Hamidi, who sold rugs, jewelry, and handicrafts, and then returned the proceeds every month to aspiring female entrepreneurs. Once, a young woman who she was helping told her that her husband had never respected her. But since she had started making money, he began supporting education for females – and especially for their five daughters.

“That woman who will never leave her home, who is illiterate, changed the course of a generation of her family by being a little bit economically independent – because someone told her she could do it,” Powell McCormick said.

The Stanford Japan Barometer (henceforth SJB), a public opinion survey on various topics including Japanese society, politics, and economy, is led by Stanford sociologist Kiyoteru Tsutsui, the deputy director of Shorenstein APARC and director of the Center’s Japan Program, and political scientist Charles Crabtree of Dartmouth College. SJB is one of the largest online surveys of its kind in Japan.

In fall 2024, SJB conducted a survey on gender and sexuality, including on the topic of optional separate surnames for married couples, as the LDP presidential election reignited the debate about this issue in Japanese society. SJB previously conducted a similar survey on the topic in 2022. Surname selection has also reemerged as a policy issue due to the growth of the opposition to the ruling LDP in the October 2024 subsequent general election for the Lower House of the National Diet (Japan's Parliament).

Below is an English translation of a recent GLOBE+ feature story on SJB's latest survey that sheds light on Japanese voters' views on this issue. This is the fifth installment in a series GLOBE+, an international news outlet run by the Asahi Shimbun, is publishing jointly with APARc’s Japan Program on SJB's work. You can read an English translation of parts 1-3 and part 4 in the series. The translation was initially generated via DeepL. The following translation was edited for accuracy and style.

Sign up for APARC's newsletters to receive our scholars' research updates >

Views on a Dual-Surname Option for Spouses

The issue came into renewed focus when former Environment Minister Shinjiro Koizumi, one of the candidates in the LDP presidential election held in September 2024, pledged to implement a selective married couple surname system. SJB therefore conducted another survey from September 25 to October 2, 2024, on the same themes as those used in the November 2022 survey on selective surname system, same-sex marriage, female Diet members, and outside directors. There were 9769 respondents, a little more than 1,000 more than in the previous survey.

The Japanese government has regularly been surveying this issue but as a result of changing the survey questions and the way they were asked between 2017 and 2021, support for the selective surname system dropped from a record high of 42.5% in the 2017 survey to record low of only 28.9% in 2021. For that reason, in SJB’s November 2022 survey and fall 2024 survey, respondents were randomly assigned to either of the two methods of asking questions from the government's 2017 and 2021 surveys.

The results showed that, among respondents assigned to the 2021 method, 26% preferred to “maintain the current system of married couples with the same family name,” 38% preferred to “maintain the current system of married couples with the same family name and establish a legal system for the use of the maiden name as a common name,” and 36% preferred to “introduce an optional system of married couples with different family names.”

On the other hand, among those assigned to the 2017 system, 21% said that “married couples should always take the same surname as long as they are married, and there is no need to change the current law,” 59% said that “if a married couple wishes to take the surname they had before their marriage, it would be acceptable if the law is changed to allow each couple to take the surname they had before their marriage,” and 20% and 20% said "Even if married couples wish to keep their maiden surnames, they should always have the same surname, but I don't mind changing the law to allow people who change their surnames due to marriage to use their maiden surnames as aliases.” In other words, 59% favored optional separate surnames for married couples.

Thus, the 2021 method of asking the question was more likely to result in fewer people supporting selective married couples. This is similar to Japan Barometer's previous 2022 survey, and it can be said that the government's 2021 survey showed less support for selective surnames because of the change in the framing of the survey questions.

As in the 2022 survey, SJB asked about optional separate surnames for married couples under certain assumptions, so as to reveal under what conditions public opinion would be swayed toward selective surnames. In SJB’s 2022 survey, respondents’ opposition was strongest when the precondition suggested separate surnames could weaken family ties or harm children and society. In the latest survey of fall 2024, however, no statistically significant causal relationship was observed, suggesting that public opinion on this issue has matured and no longer changes even when preconditions are added.

Furthermore, the 2024 survey introduced a new question about whether individuals would prefer to retain their maiden name if a dual-surname option for spouses was allowed. Among female respondents, 21.3% said they would “likely choose to do so,” 23.5% were “undecided,” and 55.2% said they “would not likely choose to do so.”

Commenting on these findings, Professor Tsutsui said: “Many older individuals and already-married women are accustomed to the current system, making it unlikely they would opt for separate surnames. The fact that only about 20% of the respondents would choose to change their surname could be a basis for some kind of legislation, since 20% of women feel inconvenienced. Furthermore, since the majority of women do not choose to have separate surnames, it is unlikely that the family system will collapse rapidly, as some conservatives worry. This may be a result that encourages the implementation of legal reform.”

Attitudes Toward Gender Equality

The survey also explored attitudes toward women’s advancement in society. As in the 2022 survey, respondents evaluated hypothetical political candidates for the Diet based on six attributes: age (from 32 to 82 in 10-year increments), gender, marital status, number of children, level of education, and professional background (10 types, including Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs bureaucrats, corporate executives, governors, and local assembly members).

Two “candidate images” were created by randomly combining six attributes, and the respondents were asked to choose one in a two-choice format. The same question was repeated 10 times with different choices, and the responses obtained from all survey targets were tabulated and analyzed. The reason for the complexity of the method is that, from a statistical point of view, this allows the researchers to get closer to the “true feelings” (public opinion) of the respondents.

The combination of attributes that received the most responses, i.e., the “ideal candidate image” in respondents' minds, was the same as in 2022: female gender, ages 32 and 42, and occupation as governor or corporate executive. This aligns with the findings from the 2022 survey, indicating strong expectations for female leaders in their 30s and 40s. Indeed, Japan’s October 2024 Diet election mirrored these results, with a record 15.7% of women elected.

Views on Same-Sex Marriage

In addition, support for same-sex marriage remained high overall, with 43.7% in favor, 38.9% neutral, and 17.3% opposed. Support for same-sex marriage increased most when the following preconditions were added: "From the standpoint of human rights and gender equality, it is unfair to not recognize same-sex marriage," and "For gay people, not having their marital relationship recognized causes various inconveniences, such as inconveniences and disadvantages in their professional and daily lives, and a sense of denial of their identity."

On the other hand, when members of Parliament and outside directors were asked about their preferred combination of attributes, the least supported of the attributes of marriage was “people in homosexual relationships.”

“Married” was the most popular, as were “never married” and “divorced,” with the least support for those in a homosexual relationship.

“While there is a growing understanding of same-sex marriage in the private sphere, there seems to be a tendency for people to choose those who are within the traditional family system for roles holding public responsibility,” said Tsutsui.

‘A Moral Eclipse’

In his introduction of Sandberg, Amichai Magen, the inaugural Visiting Fellow in Israel Studies at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), explained the film’s title.

“There is the obvious meaning, capturing the silence of death after the acts of violence. But there is also the silence of the international community, the complete shock experienced by Jewish communities all around the world, that on Oct. 8, some people denied this ever happened … After the screams, we experienced a moral silence, a moral eclipse. And then there is the silence of the invisible wounds, the broken minds, the broken souls, the broken families,” Magen said.

After leaving Meta a few years ago, Sandberg said she was completely committed to being private and not public anymore. “I'd had it, and it was done.” And then, Oct. 7 took place, and subsequent reports about sexual violence seemed to be met with an eerie silence.

Why the silence? Sandberg offered that people are so politically polarized today that they want every fact to fit into their particular narrative. And for some, sexual violence may not fit into their narrative.

“What is happening is that politics — polarization and extreme politics — are blinding us to something that should be completely obvious. I shouldn't even have to say this. Rape is not resistance. Never. Under any circumstances. Rape is not resistance. It never has been, it never will be,” she said.
 

Anyone who has a mother, a sister, a daughter, a wife, or a friend should join together to unite against rape in war or elsewhere, she added.

“It threatens all of our values,” Sandberg said about Hamas’ massacres of Israelis.

In one interview that Sandberg conducted, she spoke with Ayelet Levy Sachar, the mother of 19-year-old Naama Levy, whose kidnapping that morning was filmed by Hamas. The horrific sight of her pajama bottoms, drenched in blood at the back, was a clear indicator that sexual brutality was carried out by Hamas.

‘He’s just a hero’

After the film concluded, Sandberg joined Ayelet Gundar-Goshen, and Rabbi Idit Solomon for a conversation and question-and-answer session with the audience. Gundar-Goshen is a clinical psychologist who has personally treated Nova survivors. This quarter she is lecturer and artist-in-residence at Stanford’s Taube Center for Jewish Studies. Rabbi Idit Solomon is the interim associate director at Hillel at Stanford.

Sandberg expressed heartache over the current situation in Gaza and said she is a supporter of a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians.

“War is a terrible thing. Terror is a terrible thing. Oct. 7 is a terrible thing. What happened after that is a terrible thing. None of this should happen. We have to believe in peace. We have to get to peace. But in order to have peace, you need two people who are willing to let the other side live in peace,” she said.

In the film, she spoke with Rami Davidson, who heroically saved over 100 lives at the Nova Music Festival.

“He's just a hero,” Sandberg said about her interview with Davidson near the spot of the Nova festival. They stood close to the trees where he recalled seeing naked and mutilated bodies tied to them on Oct. 7.

“And he starts crying. He said, ‘I could have saved them. He rescued over 100 people, mostly from the Nova … For 10 hours, he went in and out in his little car, rescuing people, risking his own life. And he was just crying about the ones he didn't get to.”
 

‘A threat to our values’

Sandberg urged the audience to embrace the point that such terror will never have a place in a civilized world.

“It may take time and it may take a lot of work by people like you and all the brave people who are here today. But we are going to persuade people that this is terror. We are going to get to a world where people don't tolerate this terror and recognize the threat to our values that this is,” she said.

The documentary was released for private and public use without any licensing fees. “We're trying to get everyone we can to see it,” she said. It can be viewed for free on YouTube.

Sandberg recalled a discussion with Denis Mukwege, a Congolese physician who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflict. Mukwege said the most horrible aspect of sexual violence as a war tool is that it's incredibly effective and free.

“It doesn't just take real lives, but it destroys communities in many places around the world. When a woman is raped, in some cultures, she's then outcast from her society. It systematically destroys the fabric of communities. You have the single most effective tool of war, and it is available for free. You don't have to buy a bomb or a gun. That is so devastating because you realize what we're up against,” Sandberg said.

She concluded, “We will come through this. Not everyone will come through this. These people, some of these people will not. But we will come through this. And so, this event gives me hope.”