Suicide, Society, and Varying Degrees of Perception

Is Suicide a Sin, a Crime, a Symptom or a Right?

Children in the United States are taught early on, that suicide is unacceptable. In school, they are taught that it is a symptom of mental illness. In church, they are taught that it is a sin against God. In Sunday school, American children are taught that only God can decide when their lives are to end, and taking such a decision upon themselves is both inappropriate and possibly unforgivable. In essence, God decides when our life is to end. The decision to end one’s life is most certainly not a personal choice.

In many parts of the world, suicide is criminalized. The criminalization of suicide has a historical basis. Louis XIV of France issued an ordinance stating that the body of persons who committed suicide should be “drawn through the streets, face down, and then hung or thrown on a garbage heap.” Additionally, the state confiscated all of the person’s personal property, depriving their heirs of an inheritance. (1) In other parts of the world, including the US, it is illegal to assist or even encourage others to commit suicide. Doing so can result in a felony, accompanied by heavy fines and jail time. For the person attempting suicide, an unsuccessful suicide attempt can result in involuntary confinement in a mental institution, and involuntary psychiatric treatment. Continuous treatment plans are put in place, that must be followed by the patient, or involuntary treatment will again ensue

My “foster brother” killed himself in 2013. He had been at odds with my family for quite a while. Living in my parent’s basement, he never contributed financially, despite being in his late 40’s. My father, being the kind soul that he is, took my foster brother in as an adult, and offered to assist in putting him through nursing school. However, despite my father’s best efforts, my foster brother failed out of school, with my father having co-signed the student loan. Beginning nursing school again elsewhere, my parent’s hopes remained high. They continued to believe that this relatively young man would graduate, get a good job, and ultimately pay back his student loans. However, this desired result did not occur. Instead, my foster brother committed suicide, leaving my parent’s “holding the bag.”

When my parent’s first told me of my foster brother’s suicide, my feelings emerged as conflicted. An episode of Jerry Springer came to mind, because of the sheer insanity he had wrought upon my family. But soon, the reality set into my mind. This individual, who had once been a dear friend, had left this life of his own accord, by suffocating himself with a helium-filled bag. On the verge of failing, yet again, out of nursing school, he had perhaps seen no other alternative but to take his own life. Or had done it to get back at us? One family member stated, “He killed himself because he was a loser and he knew it.”

Our friendship had ended, and my father had given him a non-negotiable move-out date. A million questions went through my mind. The families of suicide victims are often left with a plethora of questions, and no definitive answers. In essence, this became our reality.

In 2016, the United States recorded 44,965 suicides. (2) This represented the highest rate recorded in twenty years. Risk factors include “depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, personality disorders, and substance abuse. “ (2) Other reasons include exorbitant debt, divorce, break-ups-essentially the list is endless. One of the hardest parts is the reason may never truly be known.

Many people believe suicide should be a right. “The right to die is a concept based on the opinion that a human being is entitled to end their own life or to undergo voluntary euthanasia. Possession of this right is often understood to mean that a person with a terminal illness, or without the will to continue living, should be allowed to end their own life…” (2) Many people disagree. When my foster brother committed suicide, I refused to attend the memorial service, because my hurt, disbelief, and disgust, all compiled together, resulted in me stating, “We are not allowed to kill ourselves, so why is the church even giving him a memorial service?” My mother responded by stating that the church no longer viewed suicide as a sin, but instead as a symptom of a very severe mental illness.

In light of this suicide epidemic, many have begun to suffer from “suicide fatigue.” The sheer number of people threatening it, to whoever will listen and offer them sympathy, has resulted in what some have called a backlash. One member of my family has stated, “I do not believe in suicide prevention. If you want to kill yourself, go ahead and do it. Just please don’t talk to me about it.” It has been stated that when a person is truly suicidal they simply do it, telling no one. This remains the case with my foster brother who told no one of his deadly plans. Is my relative unreasonable in her statement regarding suicide? There is something to be said for “calling someone’s bluff.” For literally a year, a friend of mine told me consistently of her desire to kill herself. When I eventually told her to go ahead and do it if that is truly what she wanted, she immediately ended our friendship. I can only surmise that suicide is not truly what she wanted, and that her words to me expressing otherwise represented half-hearted attempts at attention that resulted in words from me she did not want to hear.

The debate over whether or not human beings should be able to kill themselves is still very real and ongoing. Some believe it is a right, while others consider it a crime. The epidemic of suicide in the United States has resulted in criminal legislation and mental health reforms. Once regarded as a crime, it is today largely decriminalized, and viewed by many as a sign of mental illness. Others, however, feel fatigued even discussing it, preferring to view suicide as an individual right. Wherever one stands on the spectrum, this largely explosive issue promises to remain a hot topic for many years to come.

  1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide
  2. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_united_states

Mary Boleyn, Contemporary Working Women, and The Rise of the Underdog

Mary Boleyn, Contemporary Working Women, and The Rise of the Underdog

During the reign of Henry VIII, Queen Anne Boleyn reigned supreme, while her sister Mary suffered banishment from the royal court. Mary, formerly the King’s mistress and mother to two of his children, betrothed a low-level courtier in an unsanctioned marriage. This marriage caused a major uproar, resulting in the banishment of Mary and the removal of both children from her custody. Katherine and Henry Carey, the two children shared by Mary and King Henry, thus fell into the care of Queen Anne, their beloved aunt and step-mother.

Mary Boleyn, separated from all near and dear to her, nevertheless survived the massive pillage of her family. Her father, sister-in-law, and even her cherished sister Queen Anne, all lost their lives to the executioner’s ax. Mary’s banishment resulted in her survival, and her children lived on in the court of Queen Elizabeth I. Both children made fabulous marital matches, ultimately bearing children of their own. Yet the memory of Mary, living far away from court, lived on through her enigmatic nickname of “the great and infamous whore.”

The royal courts thought they had seen the last of Mary Boleyn. Dead six years after her banishment, her children resembled their father enough to evoke a certain degree of deference. Their cousin and half-sister, Queen Elizabeth I, a niece of Mary Boleyn, died childless, effectively ensuring that no Boleyns would ever again sit on the royal throne. Indeed, the Stewart’s came to power, and the Boleyns retreated to the background of history. However, a closer examination reveals that sometimes history is not all that it seems.

History has a funny way of favoring the underdog. The least expected outcome is often the one that takes center stage. This certainly seems to be the case with the likes of Mary Boleyn. With her humble beginnings as a royal mistress, to her disgraced exit from her family and the royal court, Mary Boleyn seems the least likely candidate to make any sort of meaningful appearance again in the pages of history. And yet, here she is, staring us in the face-or rather, her 12th great-granddaughter, stares at us through the papers and our televisions, as our very own very Queen Elizabeth II. Yes-a 12th great granddaughter of “the infamous whore” Mary Boleyn, sits on the throne of England. Through her mother, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Queen Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of Mary Boleyn through her daughter Katherine Carey.

It’s as though Mary Boleyn has reached out from the grave, assuring that her bloodline remains on the throne of England. As a matter of fact, the late Princess Diana is a descendant, as is Sarah Ferguson, the ex-wife of Prince Andrew, the Queen’s second son, and mother to his two daughters. Kate Middleton, the wife of Prince William, third in line to the throne, is also a descendant. In essence, catastrophic deaths could hit the royal family of England, and Mary Boleyn’s descendants would still sit on the throne of England, as her descendants are heirs from nearly every direction. This is quite incredible for a shunned, and disgraced ex-mistress to King Henry VIII.

Like Mary Boleyn, women have emerged as the underdog in today’s business world. Previously relegated to positions of either the Madonna (Queen Anne) or the whore (Mary Boleyn), within the realms of the bedroom and/or the realm of childrearing, women have now emerged as leaders within the business world. From Facebook and Yahoo, to Hewlett-Packard and eBay, women have proven themselves as more than capable of leading businesses to financial success. Just as Mary Boleyn reaches out from the grave into the modern-day royal family, so do the late women who entered the business world in WWII as temporary replacements for men serving abroad.

History has a way of constantly favoring the underdog. As the “great and infamous whore,” Henry VIII banished Mary Boleyn to the footnotes of history. But her descendants have gone on to the comprise the contemporary house of Windsor. Just as Mary Boleyn rose from the grave, modern-day working women also represent the rise of the underdog. While initially considered merely temporary replacements for men serving abroad in WWII, today’s women can be found in all four corners of the business world. Like the modern-day royal family and the presence of Mary Boleyn, a catastrophe could hit the business world and women would still emerge as leaders. Like Mary Boleyn, against all odds, women in the workforce are here to stay.

Emotions in the Workplace. Is there A Place For Them?

Emotions in the Workplace. Is there A Place For Them?

Before the advent of WWII, men comprised the majority of the workforce. These men encompassed the backbone of industry in America, and represented what we call today “men’s men.” Individuals such as these lived by the unspoken standard of “boys don’t cry,” and “work… is… not a place for (the) display of emotion.”(1) When the US government called these men to war, they left their positions, as well as that mentality, to the women who stepped up and took over their professional positions. The country thrust these women into environments where the philosophy advocated, “work should be a place of logical, rational thought, where you don’t give in to emotional thinking.” Furthermore, these working environments asserted that one “certainly (does) not display any emotions… (because) it’s both not professional and leaves (one) too vulnerable.” (1) However, then and now, women have often struggled to follow these unspoken rules of how they should conduct themselves in the workplace.

Scientific studies have shown that men and women are different physiologically. In essence, we process information differently. For example, one study showed that the “neural circuitry recruited during emotion processing differed between the sexes. Women showed neural activity in the anterior insula cortex, which processes bodily sensations. This means that they deeply experienced emotions within their bodies. Men, on the other hand, showed neural responses in the visual cortex. While processing these images, male brains immediately activated circuitry involved in regulating shifts of attention to the world (i.e., the dorsal anterior insula cortex and the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). This allowed them to shift the emotional impact of the images away from themselves.” (2) Essentially, women feel emotions deeply-even physically-while men are able to shift their thought processes away from an emotional response and deal with the matter at hand. With differences like this now being unveiled by science, and with women comprising 47% of the total workforce, is it really fair to expect women to think like men? And is this line of thought what is best for the workplace as a whole? (3)

Critics argue that differences such as these make the workplace better suited for men, then for women. Others argue that women bring authenticity to the workplace, in line with the “woke” movement or the “authentic living movement.” (4) Either way, it can be argued that it is not realistic to require women to literally change the way their brains process information. But if women are being held to an unreasonable standard, then what is the solution regarding their inclusion in the workforce?

One solution for women in the workplace is learning to disassociate themselves from emotion. Some scientists argue that this is an adaptation women can learn, and thus contribute to a rational and logical workplace for all. Indeed, learning to remove personal feelings for others in the workplace can help women prevent burnout and feelings of being overwhelmed. Learning to categorize thoughts and responses can lead to an overall less dramatic work environment. However, women who fall short of this expectation often are categorized as “crazy” when they display emotion, and women who don’t display emotion are categorized as “lacking empathy.” One can also argue that, since men and women spend more than half of their lives at work, this lack of emotion can and will bleed into our homes and society. “Such distancing….allows one to ignore the pain of others or to freely inflict such pain with little distress to oneself. Such distancing may be adaptive for combat, torture, or cruelty, but can prove problematic for developing prosocial competencies.” (2) Is a workplace and thus a society without empathy really what is best for humankind?

Another solution lies in compassion training for both genders. If women process emotion deeply-even physically, and men dissociate themselves from feelings of emotion, then “such training allows both sexes to learn to disengage in a manner that fosters benevolent action rather than succumbing to overwhelm or resorting to uncaring dissociation.” (2) Thus, with both genders learning to show compassion to others in a benevolent way, a more harmonious and empathetic workforce may likely result.

In conclusion, men and women process information differently, leading to conflicts in the workforce over proper standards of behavior. While most men dissociate themselves from emotion, most women process emotions in a deep, often physical level. Such differences can, arguably, be reconciled through compassion training for both genders. Such training teaches men and women to disengage in a manner that is benevolent rather than one lacking empathy. The result may well be a more realistic standard of behavior for both genders and a more authentic workplace for all.

Sources:

  1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2016/06/06/emotions-at-work-needless-or-necessary/#714a656a917b
  2. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/good-thinking/201406/are-males-and-females-equally-emotional
  3. https://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-laborforce-10.htm
  4. https://psychcentral.com/lib/ways-of-living-an-authentic-life/

What is Family?

What is Family?

Across the United States this week, families convened for dinner in celebration of Thanksgiving. Individuals who had not seen each other for days, months, and sometimes years, sat together and ate turkey, in commemoration of the meal celebrated between the Indians and Pilgrims. As this holiday comes to a close, it then begs the question-what defines a contemporary family in the year 2018?

Many families define their relationships to one another through shared genetics and connections created by marriage. Genetic connections can create shared physical attributes, similar interests, and related professions. Additionally, hobbies may be shared, in addition to preferred foods, colors, and other similar tastes. When families are together, it is often refreshing to be surrounded by individuals who are similar to us, reinforcing our beliefs, tastes, and preferences. Yet, does this define family, or is there, more to it?

Other families define family, not through shared genetics, but by shared interests alone. One example consists of meetup groups sharing Thanksgiving together, with shared interests such as canoeing, art, music, and beer. But do shared interests alone create a family, or does there need to be more? Do these individuals qualify as family for the simple reason that they share time, joy, and holidays together, or is more required?

Individuals with shared beliefs also sometimes consider themselves family. These individuals even go so far as to refer to one another as members of a larger “church family.” Some of these churches host holiday get-togethers, either within the church or within the homes of parishioners.’ Such familial church groups have a shared faith, often coupled with shared politics, and shared customs. Because of these broad familiarities, it is not surprising that church parishioners often marry one another, extending the church family into a genetic one.

With all of the positive attributes of family, there are also families that do not enjoy each other’s company. Holidays for these individuals often occur because of family obligation created by marriage or genetics. Thanksgivings for families such as these are sometimes unpleasant, argumentative, and even fiery. It is for reasons such as these, that some people do not care for holidays, and only begrudgingly show-up for the obligatory Turkey dinner. If the individuals at hand truly do not care for one another, do they still qualify as a family? Is genetics alone enough, or is more required?

Genetics, common interests and shared faith all encompass elements that comprise a family. Some families like one another, and/or have shared interests while others do not. However, one can argue that it is none of these things alone that create a family. Some assert that, instead, it is the holidays themselves that inspire the idea of family, bringing individuals together for a meal, who otherwise might not have anything to do with one another. One can argue that holidays such as Thanksgiving make us examine what, to us, represents family-and this is ultimately a personal decision, arguably inspired by national holidays.
In conclusion, family can be defined by different standards, including, genetics, marriage, interests, and faith. However, in the end, one can state that it is none of these things that actually create a family, but instead, the holidays themselves that inspire the idea of family. By doing so, individuals come together, who otherwise might not, to take part in something larger than themselves-a national holiday. And isn’t believing in something bigger than ourselves an essential part of our own humanity?

Dental Hygiene, Innovation, and the Royal Family of France

How the Court of Versailles Contributed to the Contemporary Struggle Against Virulent Oral Microorganisms

Seventeenth century France at the Palace of Versailles represented the best of times and the worst of times. Behind the glittering parties and hallways lined with gold, lay a very dirty, ugly reality. While the royal family smiled on the outside, their internal smiles often hid rotten, infected, and missing teeth. At this time, the term oral hygiene did not yet exist-that is, until it wreaked death and misfortune on royal generations to come.

King Louis XIV

Louis XIV’s severe dental problems led to the appointment of the world’s first official dentist. At the beginning of Louis XIV’s reign, dentistry remained the practice of charlatans. Tonics, bloodletting, leeching, and the extraction of teeth represented the entirety of this largely ineffective practice. After several bouts with severe toothaches, followed by several tooth removals, a major infection took over the king’s mouth. Because of this infection, more teeth had to be subsequently removed. This incident led to the King appointing a special dentist in 1712, with the exclusive job of preserving the few teeth he had left. (1) Nevertheless, the King’s special dentist relied upon the traditional practices of the day, which unfortunately remained largely ineffective.

King Louis XV

Dental infections not only affected the king but also contributed to the high infant mortality rate experienced by the royal court. Queen Marie-Therese, the wife of Louis XIV, suffered from rotten teeth, with her remaining ones completely blackened. (1) The queen’s body weakened and riddled with constant infections originating in her mouth, she lost five children shortly after childbirth or in early infancy. Only one of her children survived to adulthood. (3) In 1741, Queen Marie-Therese’s grandson, Louis XV realizing the overall health significance of caring for one’s teeth, issued a royal decree giving dentists ” a status of their own and no longer… count(ing) them among the odd charlatans.” (1)

Botot, the first toothpaste & mouthwash

Louis XV’s granddaughter, Princess Marie-Therese, born on July 19, 1746, died before reaching the age of two. She had fallen victim of a “toothache too brutal” and was grossly “ill-treated.” (2) The death of the little girl represented true heartbreak for the crown prince, as she represented the only link he still had to his late first wife. (2) In an effort to forestall such future calamities, in 1755, Dr. Julien Botot, the official royal court dentist, presented Louis XV with a new invention; a paste that one applies to their teeth, for the exclusive purpose of keeping them healthy. In addition to that, he also concocted an oral rinse, with the aspiration of assisting in removing unseemly odors. He called the paste “toothpaste” and the rinse “mouthwash.” (1). News of these new inventions spread throughout the royal court, across the country, and then ultimately throughout Europe, contributing significantly to our dental practices today.

World Health Organization (WHO)

The twenty-first century led to a plethora of challenges in the dental industry. New, inventive toothpaste and mouthwashes hit the burgeoning market. Teeth become whiter, straighter, and longer lasting, largely because of more stringent standards of cleanliness. However, in 2005, the World Health Organization released a paper advocating the reduction of mercury in the cleaning solutions of hospitals. (4) This factor, coupled with the systematic overuse of antibiotics, (5) contributed to the rise of superbugs, or virulent microorganisms, including Stepelococous, Staph, and Candida. (6) Today, our mouths represent the most effective way for these superbugs to enter our bodies, and the results are catastrophic. Systemic health effects include “cardiovascular disease, bacterial pneumonia, diabetes mellitus, and low birth weight.” (7) The most vulnerable members of our society are at greatest risk-that is, seniors wearing partials, and children wearing braces or other orally insertable devices.

The reality of systemic health problems affecting our most vulnerable has led to further innovations in the dental industry. One company making great strides in this area is Soluria. With their highly advanced cleaners, specifically made for orally inserted devices, Soluria is contributing greatly to the halt of microorganisms and systemic diseases originating in the mouth. (8) Just as the death of Marie-Therese led to the creation of toothpaste and mouthwash, the rise of modern-day superbugs has led to new highly effective cleaners for both teeth and orally inserted devices. These liquids represent the newest generation of dental cleansers, stepping far beyond traditional toothpaste and mouthwashes. As the superbugs of today continue to evolve and change, so must the dental industry. The industry must stay steps ahead, especially in regard to cleaning oral devices, as they are continually used by society’s most vulnerable.

The severe dental problems experienced by the royal court of Versailles ultimately led to great advances in the dental industry as well as personal hygiene. From the recognition of the industry in 1712, to the invention of toothpaste in 1755, dentistry evolved and changed initially within the confines of the royal court. (1) Their new smiles infected those around them, in a good way, with the advances spreading throughout the nobles, the townspeople, Europe, and ultimately the world, changing the teeth of everyone for the better. Today, with the rise of superbugs, and the appearance of virulent oral microorganisms, Soluria is making advances in the dental industry for those wearing removable oral devices of all types, especially the new innovations in clear braces. With specialized products like Smile Saver™, created specifically for these devices, Soluria is making the latest advances in helping these patients have a better experience and begin to look at ways to help win the fight against oral systemic health issues. (8)

For further information about the latest advancements in cleaners and sanitizers for removable oral devices in a highly desired on-the-go format, please go to soluria.com

  1. http://thisisversaillesmadame.blogspot.com/2017/01/a-tale-of-royal-teeth-black-rotten-gone.html
  2. https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie-Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se_de_France_(1746-1748)
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Theresa_of_Spain
  4. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/medicalwaste/mercurypolpaper.pdf
  5. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/p0503-unnecessary-prescriptions.html
  6. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111/j.1472-765x.2011.03031.x
  7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC88948/
  8. https://soluria.com

Heroes Through a Modern Filter

The heroes of yesterday were rugged, unforgiving, and victorious. The majority of early leaders got to their positions of power by whatever means necessary. They were outspoken, abrasive, and even violent, but during that day and age, those qualities were revered. Those were the qualities successful men had. However, as time marches on, many individuals argue that these heroes are undeserving of our adoration and/or attention because of their behavior. Are these people putting a modern filter on the actions of yesteryear and trying to reprehend history instead of embracing the past?

In today’s modern age, many of our traditional heroes are being attacked. Winston Churchill, the man heralded by many as the “man of the century,” is now criticized by his detractors as a racist. As a young lady, my father explained to me, “Had it not been for Winston Churchill, we would all be speaking German today.” Indeed, Churchill stood up to the tyrant Adolf Hitler, while his parliamentary contemporaries wanted to “sue for peace.” As a result, the Tory party replaced British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, with Winston Churchill, and with the support of the king and ultimately his party, Great Britain and the western world triumphantly defeated “the axis of evil.” Nevertheless, as many point out, Churchill had a dark side. “I hate Indians,” he once trumpeted. “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” And so therein lay the contradiction-the man who dared stand up to Hitler, and galvanized the world to ultimately follow his lead, nevertheless did so by whatever means necessary. Should his success be belittled in today’s society because he would be deemed racist? Following this bandwagon, General Patton, a man instrumental in leading U.S. forces during WWII, is today criticized as a bad husband, an uncaring father, and insensitive to soldiers bludgeoned by war and inflicted with PTSD. Patton had a hard-driving personality and a strong disbelief in the medical condition “combat stress reaction,” also then called “shell shock.” Should his lack of compassion for the people around him discredit the success he had in the military?

It is not only men that are in danger of the scrutiny of today’s society. Eleanor Roosevelt is criticized by the LGBT community for being a closeted lesbian. Jacqueline Kennedy is criticized for truly achieving nothing except dressing well and “riding on the coattails of her husband.” Even the memory of the beloved Princess Diana is under siege. As a young lady, Princess Diana represented my role model of choice and is still significant in my life today. While navigating puberty, anxiety, depression, and teenage rebellion, my role model provided a much needed stabilizing factor. Today, her loving nature and forgiving heart are still ideals I try to emulate. My dreams and future plans are still influenced by her; indeed, even my vacations to Europe reflect her spirit. Without the role model of Princess Diana in my life, I would not be the person I am today. With all of this historical revision occurring, it is daring us to take a closer look at our heroes. Should we hold history to today’s standards?

The young girl who would listen to her father’s stories about the bravery of Winston Churchill is now a grown woman leading a digital marketing company. Shaped by the stories of my youth, and influenced by the role model of my choice, I am proud of who I am and what I have accomplished. The theme of my life has been greatly influenced by many of the traditional heroes of the past and present. Young men and women growing up in the contemporary world face a plethora of challenges. From broken families, and drug addiction, to other modern day stresses, traditional role models often provide an outline for how to live one’s life well. While this is most certainly a personal choice, one can argue that the very fabric of our society, and daresay, our being, is the result of stories passed down through the generations. In a world full of troubles, for many, they represent a beacon of light. If we destroy our heroes, one can argue that we have very little left. It can be said that everyone and everything has a dark side of some sort. No one is downy white, and the world comes in shades of gray. We would do well to remember this when judging those from the past with the ideals of today. I for one am willing to look past the dark side of my role models. Instead, I choose to look toward their inherent goodness and be aware that, like my role model, I too am inherently flawed… and for me, that is okay.

Feminism, Personal Choice, and the Gender Gap In America

Why do Women Still Make Less Than Men In The Modern Day Workforce?

Today, studies exist indicating that, on average, women in the United States make $0.77 on the $1.00 to every man. This “gender gap” as it is called, has raised real concerns amongst feminists and non-feminists alike. The parameters of the study included all women in America versus all men in America, and did not take into consideration work parity or differences such as full-time or part-time work. Many individuals felt that the lack of parameters in the study immediately debunked it, arguing that when analyzing males and females in similar positions, the gender gap dissipates, falling within the margin of error. However, this leads to an even bigger question-why are all the women in America making less than all of the men? Furthermore, who is accountable for this “gender gap,” and why does it exist?

As a female business owner, I often feel like a minority. Indeed, women are still a minority in the workforce, and even more of a minority when it comes to business ownership. Being the owner of a successful business requires razor sharp accuracy, overwhelming commitment, and unmeasurable sacrifice. My days are long, my stress levels high, and the responsibility often daunting. Yet, I choose to continue because, ultimately, I truly enjoy having a career and a life based upon achievement. This, however, is not for everyone. This then begs the question: Do American women, on the whole, choose less stressful, lower paying positions, often eschewing business ownership or higher paying positions, because of the heavy toll it can take on themselves and their families?

An analysis of the positions in my own company reveals a possible answer. While the majority of the managers in my company are women, the sales department is comprised entirely of men, save for myself. Why is this? Years ago, I asked my father why he did not have any female sales representatives in his company, of which he is CEO. My father, a proud “honorary woman,” who has championed me every step of the way in my career, sat back in his chair and answered me candidly. “Katherine, dear, I tried hiring a female sales representative a couple of years ago, but before she could start, her husband got transferred. I simply have not had any other women apply.” I heard him loudly and clearly. In this day and age, nearly sixty years after the advent of the feminist movement in the United States, the careers of wives often still take a backseat to that of their husbands.

Indeed, my company has employed female sales representatives in the past. The last one employed simply could not make it work, primarily because of issues relating to childcare. Sales jobs are typically low paying unless the sales representative produces. However, a successful sales representative often earns the most of anyone in a company-sometimes even the owner. Nevertheless, just like business owners, sales representatives work long hours, live under a cloud of stress, and sacrifice a great deal in order to make a hefty paycheck.

For many women, the jobs that pay a consistent salary or a consistent hourly wage, often represent a better alternative than the uncertainty of potentially higher paying positions. This is consistent because of societal responsibilities placed upon them. For example, if children are involved, women are often expected to be the family member retrieving the child from school, or the one to stay home if the child is ill. Women are also, on average, the primary family member expected to monitor the child’s homework, and take them to after-school activities. These responsibilities, one could assert, have contributed significantly to the gender gap.

Another issue contributing to the gender gap, is women opting out of the workforce entirely. I have some female family members and friends who have chosen to be full-time mothers and/or housewives, eschewing a career outside the home. Decisions such as these, arguably, also contribute to the finding of women making $0.77 on the $1.00 to men, since men in America very rarely have the luxury of making such a choice. However, the very fact that this statistic has been identified, means that women as a class are arguably hurting other women, albeit unintentionally, by choosing to make what they view as a “personal choice.” The saying, “The personal is political,” likely comes into play here. Essentially, their “personal choice” contributes to the gender gap, disheartening women who are battling it out in the workforce.

When individuals argue that women staying home is a personal choice, with little to no consequence on other women, one needs to look no further than “Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka,” 347 U.S. 483 (1954) where the Supreme Court ruled
“separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Simply put, segregation in our society based on race is illegal. Consequently, one can also argue that segregation in our society based on gender is illegal. Perhaps this is an extreme example, but if a certain amount of African Americans decided to remain enslaved, would not other African Americans find this unacceptable? Following this logic, when a certain amount of American women decide to remain at home, should not other American women find this unacceptable? The assertion that women staying home is equal to men in the workforce is arguably a violation of the 14th Amendment of the United States. Separate is not equal-ever. It is not equal in race, and it is not equal in gender. Following suit, tax breaks for families with a mother at home are probably a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and a society that demands women to be the primary caregivers to children is a violation also. Equal is equal-period. As my husband puts it, equal rights means equal financial responsibility as well as equal pain and suffering.

It is fair to say, for the gender gap to truly disappear, deep seated changes in our society must take place. What are the solutions? Perhaps tax breaks for daycare, or expanding public education to six weeks of age. Another possibility is businesses receiving tax breaks for providing on-site daycare. Most significantly, women must be instilled with the desire to work, and to value the freedoms that a career provides them, such as economic independence and buying power. Furthermore, families must learn to share the burden of raising children and not expect mothers to be the primary caregivers. There are a plethora of ideas one can put forth that could help alleviate or even eliminate the gender gap. As a feminist, and as a business owner, I search for these solutions on a daily basis. However, today, in 2018, the gender gap still exists, and the struggle for gender equality is still very real and ongoing.

In conclusion, as a female business owner, I am in a unique position to help other women in the workforce, while also observing the societal forces that continue to hold us back. In order for the gender gap truly to be overcome in the United States, it can be argued that we must abandon the thought that women staying home is a personal choice of no consequence to working women. Instead, women must start viewing themselves as a class of individuals, deserving of more than “separate but equal.” Equal rights for all means equal responsibility for all. Only when we as a society make this paradigm shift, will the decidedly disappointing gender gap truly disappear.

Transformational Clients, Overcoming Client Turnover, and the Example of the British Royal Family

Transformation in the business atmosphere is integral for the growth of companies. Employees must inhabit an environment where they are valued, cared for, and their personal growth is at the forefront. By creating such an atmosphere, employees take care of the clients in a transformational manner. When new ideas are posed, innovation occurs, and employee turnover is minimal as well as the turnover of clients. However, in order for such an atmosphere to thrive, clients must be transformational also-meaning they want to employ the services offered to them in furtherance of a transformational environment for themselves and their clients. This is the key that makes the circle go “round and round.”

Clients typically cancel for the following reasons:

  1. They feel the service they have purchased is not being provided to them as promised.
  2. They do not see the value in what they have purchased.
  3. They have found a company that can provide to them what they perceive to be a similar service at a lower price.

My fifteen years in the business world have taught me how to overcome the majority of these objections. For example, by creating a transformational business environment, one can attract and retain competent employees who, because they feel valued, in turn, value the clients of your company. The environment in which they work fosters one where everything promised to a client is delivered and more. This should, in theory, eliminate the objection of a client claiming they did not get what they had been promised.

The second objection of clients not seeing the value of what they have purchased is consistently overcome by staying in contact with clients and explaining to them the value and benefits of what they are receiving. This is achieved by maintaining the manpower necessary to visit clients on a regular basis, so they do not feel forgotten. I have learned that a “neglected client” is an unhappy client. No matter how much work you are doing behind the scenes, if a client does not see your face at least fairly regularly, the turnover of this client is inevitable.

The third objection, comprised of finding a company offering what is perceived as a comparable service at a lower rate, is also overcome by staying in contact and establishing value. When the return on investment is more than the initial expense, the service paid for itself, and that is the ultimate goal. Tying in with the second objection, the value must be established in order for clients to resist being tempted to go with what they perceive to be a cheaper solution. As we all know, something cheaper always exists, but simply and truly, you “get what you pay for.”

After all of these factors have been taken into consideration, and preemptively dealt with, why does client turnover still occur? As previously stated, the circle of transformation must be complete in order for it to accurately work, just like the wheel of a car will not perform properly if it has a hole. Quite simply, transformative businesses require transformative clients-that is, clients who want to employ your services in order to contribute to the transformative environment they are fostering for themselves, their employees, and, in turn, their own clients.

A strategic partner I have has said to me, “I have fired clients, and I have let clients expire, but rarely if ever do I take them to court. If they do not value what I am doing, I will let them go.” She has a point. As a transformational business person, we need to pick like-minded clients. If we do not, the struggle is almost not worth it.

Surprisingly, the royal family of England is an excellent example of a transformational “company.” The Queen of England provides a constantly evolving environment for her family and employees. The mere existence of Meghan Markle in the royal family is indicative of the family’s ability to adapt. Twenty years ago, a divorced American actress would have never perceived joining the royal family as a positive career move, much less a possible lifestyle choice. Megan has been given the opportunity to take on a royal role and make it her own. Of course, there are guidelines, but the restrictions placed upon her are no more than those placed upon individuals within a corporate environment. Without its transformational nature, the British monarchy would have been thrown out long ago. All businesses, in order to stay relevant, must evolve and change.

In conclusion, there are three main objections put forth by clients regarding cancellations. While transformational working environments can adequately overcome these objections, client turnover can still occur if the clients themselves are not as adaptive to change. A broken wheel cannot turn, and in order for the wheel of transformation to go “round and round,” both vendor and client must share this same philosophy. If they do not, then no amount of hard work or innovation can overcome client turnover. Just as the royal family of England has found regarding their own family and employees, businesses must have innovation and transformation in order to survive and thrive.

Women in Business, Female Economic Independence, and the Spirit of Jezebel

Why Economic Freedom is Key to Female Autonomy.

The 1960’s represented a time of cultural change for women in America. Women banded together and fought for their rights, demanding acknowledgment as individuals and not just as marital property. By doing so, women won the right to a workplace without discrimination, the right to have their income counted toward home loans, the right to reproductive freedom, and even the right to keep their own last names. Women moved steadily into the workforce and for the first time since the outbreak of WWII the economy, as well as the social landscape of America, rapidly changed.

As the women’s rights movement progresses through time, there are still serious factors that derail our progress and development as individuals. One of the most serious factors is economic dependence on the male gender. As a female growing up, my mother stressed to me over and over, “You will go to college, you will have a career, and you will always work. You will never depend economically on a man because you never know when he might leave.” As a result, I got a college degree, a master’s degree, and further post-graduate work, ultimately becoming the CEO/President of my own company. To this day, my mother never hesitates to tell me how proud she is of me, and that while telling me those things as a child, she honestly thought her words “went through one ear and out the other.” I have demonstrated to her through my life choices that they most certainly did not.

Queen Jezebel, Feminist Icon

Despite my life choice of economic independence, I have family members and friends who have chosen otherwise. I have friends that are career stay-at-home mothers, friends that work as their significant other’s personal assistant, and a friend that chose to re-enter the workplace once her children were school aged. In all cases, these women gave up portions of their autonomy, because they did not control the checkbook, putting themselves in positions of being economically dependent on their husbands. Why is this dangerous? Many people argue it is not. These people may believe that women are meant to be dependent on men economically, or that taking care of the family and not working outside the home is the best option for women. They even point to the Holy Bible as vindication for this belief, referencing the book of Kings, and the ancient Phoenician Queen Jezebel. Anyone who has attended a fundamentalist Christian church is likely familiar with “the spirit of Jezebel,” that is, the “unholy spirit” that tempts women to wear makeup, have sexual freedom, and speak their minds to others, including their husbands. A beautiful, strong-willed woman, Jezebel did all of these things, and when her son died, she attempted to rule Judah on her own. In an act of independence, she confronted a rebellious commander, adorned in a fine wig and make-up, and this simple gesture resulted in her being thrown out a window and devoured by dogs. She didn’t even get a chance to plead her case or mourn the loss of her child before she was murdered for attempting to take control of her own life. Today, many fundamentalist Christians associate female independence as “the spirit of Jezebel,” and warn that this spirit is indicative of the downfall of our civilization. They argue that women and men are meant to work together but women are supposed to be submissive to males. They say that is the natural order and the way God intended.

Again, why is this belief dangerous? It is dangerous because, as my mother said to me, “You never know when the man might leave.” Just this week, a friend of mine lost her significant other in an automobile crash. Having put herself in a position of financial dependence, she now faces a very uncertain economic future. I personally know women who have suffered through a disastrous and abusive marriage, because they felt they could not economically survive without their husband. There are cases of healthy families with stay-at-home mothers, but an enlightened husband must be the breadwinner, and the wife must be willing to give up at least some, if not all, of her financial autonomy.

As a female business owner, I feel it is my duty to empower all of my employees. However, I especially feel an obligation to empower the women within my company. I am fortunate to have females in managerial positions who are transforming themselves, as well as our industry. By providing them careers, I am providing them with an outlet for their talents, as well as economic independence. As women, I feel strongly that we need to bind together, help one another, and support one another, especially in the workplace. Perhaps Jezebel, while demonized by many fundamentalist Christian churches, represents what we all should aspire to be-Queens in our own right, outspoken, and beautiful. Today, as a result of the feminist movement, we have a much better chance of achieving our goals, unlike the unfortunate Queen Jezebel, who met such a gruesome end.

In conclusion, the 1960’s represented a time of great economic and social change for women. While elements still exist in our society attempting to hold women back from economic independence, such as the notion of the “spirit of Jezebel,” we still have a much better chance of achieving economic freedom then our foremothers ever did. As women, economic independence is key to having autonomy over our own lives, wellbeing, and safety. Binding together as women is key to the success of our gender as a whole, and to our lives individually. Let’s allow Queen Jezebel to stand as a role model for what could not be in the Old Testament, but for what we can be today.

The Entrepreneurial Journey, Family Support and Success

Why The Emotional Support of Family is Key to a Successful Business

Ten years ago I made a decision-a decision that would ultimately change the direction of my life forever. Rather than remaining in England and working as a broker, or moving to Chicago for a cushy job in a financial firm, I decided to forge my own path and start my own business. I would return to my roots in the publishing industry, and at the same time assist in taking care of my ailing grandmother.

My father, an entrepreneur, provided me a great deal of emotional support. My mother did also, suggesting she might come and stay with me for a while, to make sure I knew my way around town. My grandmother, now living in an assisted living facility, encouraged me to come and live in her home. In turn, I promised to assist in her care and visit her daily.

This plethora of family support provided me a much needed fountain of strength, especially when things became challenging. After difficult days in the field, overcoming objections and convincing people to participate in my project, I loved coming back to a grandmother and her friends who provided me with a respite from the stress of my daily working life.

It is important to understand that when one embarks on a new endeavor, stress levels can run high, even if the stress is positive. In the early days, I often thought of my childhood role model, Princess Diana, and how the lack of family support in her situation ultimately, albeit indirectly, led to her untimely death and to the end of what I like to call “Diana Inc.” Regarding her first official royal tour in Australia, Diana stated that when she heard people saying “Oh, she (Diana) (i)s on the other side,” Charles felt quite “low about it, instead of feeling happy and sharing it.” In response to what would ultimately become the theme of their entire marriage, Diana stated,

“It was isolating, but it was also a situation where you couldn’t indulge in feeling sorry for yourself: you had to either sink or swim. And you had to learn that very fast.” “And what did you do?” the reporter asked. “ I swam.”

She swam-for the next fifteen years-most of it alone. But ultimately, Diana quit, citing lack of support on the part of the Queen, The Queen Mother, and Prince Charles. Without their love and support, she simply could not carry on her duties. The way Diana reacted is not uncommon. In fact, more than half of all businesses fail.

One of the primary reasons cited by business owners for the reason business failure occurs is the lack of emotional support provided by family and friends. For me, this support has remained a key factor in my success. For example, I chose a spouse who supports me emotionally and encourages me in my work. I knew from Diana’s failure, that the choice of a supportive spouse would be a substantial key in my success. At one point, my husband made a financial investment in my business, citing his faith in my business acumen. Another time, when a partnership upon which I had embarked became distasteful, my husband provided loving guidance on how to buy out the partner’s shares. Through it all, he has remained my rock and given me much needed trust, support, and encouragement.

In a similar manner, when Lisa Halaby married King Hussein of Jordan, she stepped into unfamiliar territory, as an American Queen in a foreign country. Viewed with suspicion by the people of Jordan, she did not exactly experience a fantastic “homecoming.” However, with the loving and unwavering support of her husband, Lisa (now known as Queen Noor) opened an office, hired a staff, and began offering micro-financing loans to poor Bedouin women making handicrafts from home. Queen Noor set up consignment agreements with local shopkeepers, subsequently spawning an entire cottage industry of women able to support their families. When the occasional husband expressed jealousy in the success of his wife, King Hussein personally stepped in and told the men that they should be proud of their wives, just as had tremendous pride in his own wife. Queen Noor went on to be the most successful Queen in Jordan to date, helping more people economically than any other person in the history of the country. She always cited the loving support of King Hussein as the key to her success.

In conclusion, businesses fail for many reasons, but a major reason is the lack of family support provided to entrepreneurs. Being an entrepreneur can be a lonely, difficult road. The support of family and friends is a major factor in long-term success. As indicated by the failure of Princess Diana in her royal role, all the money in the world cannot make up for the lack of emotional support. I have succeeded because I received this support from loving parents, a wonderful grandmother, and a husband that believes in me above all else. As entrepreneurs embark on their journey, it is important to create an environment where this need is fulfilled, or the business is likely to ultimately fail.