It's a (Corporate's) Man's World Blog

"It will only save 1 out of 1900..."

The above was a quote regarding the new guidlines regarding mammagrams and breast cancer.  Guidelines are being put forth that women should not start mammograms until age 50 (instead of 40).  The pundit/doctor was saying that the panel found that annual mammograms for women under the age of 40 are unnecessary/unhelpful/and potentially emotionally upsetting. The panel's main spin is that the downside annual mammograms for women under 40 leads to a 10% false positive reading which leads to (it seems) an emotional breakdown for these women.  Because the panel is trying to "sell its findings" the false positive is the main point of the downside -  it seemed that when a false positive reading was given to one of these women, a fainting couch needed to be at the ready. 

I do need to say that 1) I have had a false positive (a shadow on the film) and no fainting couch necessary and 2) I have two friends who were under 50 and due to mammograms were diagnosed with breast cancer; caught it early and are now cancer free.  These are friends so I feel like I know 2 that I chose to believe the mammogram did save.

OK that said, "Breast Cancer" as a business is a phenomenal model for other causes and businesses. "They" {breast cancer people} changed public perception (which is extremely, extremely difficult)  by creating the idea (that many doctors claim as mythology) that if caught early you CAN beat cancer.  They have created the idea of personal responsiblity, almost to the point of guilt  (tell your doctor you didn't get screened and look at the face - guys it like telling the dental hygenist that you don't floss twice a day!!) that you MUST get screened every year because if you don't and then get cancer it is sort of your own fault.  "They" have created the narrative of triumph and tragedy with symbols of pink ribbons and runs.  And that you MUST care because it your mothers, daughters and wives.  (Side note:  Men get breast cancer also and boy is it difficult for them)

Many doctors, and patient advocates have claimed for years that the above narrative is a falsehood; not all cancers are treatable (no matter how early it is detected) and some cancers grow fast and some slow.  That there is no rhyme or reason over who gets sick and who gets well.  Of course we know some basic concepts of health but there are runners who die of heart attacks and 350 lb smokers who live until 100. 

The fight breast cancer messages have become so internalized that to suggest any change (meaning doing less instead of doing more) leads to extreme discomfort. 

Of course one of the questions is with this shift in the recommendation is will insurance companies no longer pay for mammagrams for women under 50; and how many of the poor (many with pre-exsisting comprimised health) will be negatively impacted?  Also, mammagrams are currently a $5B dollar a year business with demand going down what will happen to costs?  Economics says they should go down - I believe that any woman under 50 who wants a mammagram will have to pay more and/or cash out of pocket.

I do know my false positive cost me $250 out of pocket (insurance only covers the first one) and I was fortunate enought to have the money but most importantly not to be sick.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out in both policy and public opinion. 

Did the wife know?

As I am one of the "presenters" for "The Financier" I will save some of the discussion for class.  I can say that this is the type of book I would have read if I did not have so much reading for school, although there is a lot (too much?) on the machinations of fund movement. What was relevant however is just how similar the scandal was to the scandals of today and brings forth the question that I often ask when these men (mostly) go down and that is did the wife know? 

Now that is the question often asked when speaking of sexual infidelity as opposed to financial but I find the money question slightly more interesting.

About two years ago, an acquittance of mine (friend to others in my circle of friends) was arrested (after fleeing to some caribbean island) for fraud; larceny and embezzlement.  He had started a hedge fund and began stealing from the company and falsifying records and reports.  My friends lost money - not enough to lead to ruin but enough to create hurt feelings.  This individual had gone to the Kennedy School with some of my friends and undergrad with some others - which is why my friends had chosen to invest with him in the first place.  Now, he and his wife, who also attended Harvard  (they had three children)had divorced some three years before the arrest and the husband while paying child support had remarried a younger (model/restaurant hostess) women. 

The reason for the divorce according to the first wife was irreconcilable differences (which was believable as the guy was kind of a jerk) but the timing was suspect because the divorce came quickly and she had an infant; it is now known that he was already stealing at that point.  Right before the arrest, the first wife received a box  which she did not open until she went directly to her lawyer, and opened it together and discovered $100,000 in cash and some jewelry and which time they did indeed call the police.   All of this to say that I tend to believe she indeed knew and understood all about her husbands shenanigans and chose to get out (she did not however, inform their friends or the police) and just watched as things blew up.

Now, upon asking many of my girlfriends who are married would you rather your husband have an affair OR steal millions of dollars from your friends and family - the answer 100% was the former!  This to me is fascination you would rather have your spouse commit a crime that not only ruins the fiscal lives of the people close to you but also an offense that can take him to jail! (which is where my acquaintance currently is.) 

As women become more educated and aware do they as spouses have any responsibility to inquire as to how they are living particular lifestyle.  By all accounts, Andrew Fastow's (of Enron) was extremely savvy and was responsible for bringing her family (and using her children) as tools to help Andrew launder his gains.  She was a willing and active participant and also sentenced to jail, as was her husband.  (Arguably it was their race, class and status that allowed or convinced the judge to allow each - Andrew and his wife - to serve their times at different intervals so the children would have at least one parent at home - to be clear if they were Mexican pot smokers with two children that would NOT have been the outcome) But the fact that the quest for money so clouded their judgment that they would risk their family.

Finally, studies have shown that in the US while dating people are much more comfortable and willing to discuss past sexual experiences (even STD's) than their credit scores, debt and income. 

The Queen of spin or Tom Cruise's former publicist

I will not be in class this week and I am a little sad because PR is another one of those misunderstood and abused marketing tactics that I would love to talk about.  So this post is rather lengthy...

A quick primer - as stated in class marketing has the four p's (product; price; place and promotion) Well there are 4 tactics in the promotion mix selling and sales promotion (those are to persuade) and then advertising and p.r (those are used to inform).  In the early 20th century PR was thought more credible because it was unpaid and thus believed to be more honest.  The media industry has changed - marked by the infamous decision of 60 minutes to bow to advertiser/corporate pressure and not broadcast a piece on tobacco (Philip Morris (owner of Kraft General Foods) threatened to pull advertising from CBS television on other outlets.  The idea that news would cave to the pressure by the entertainment division was structure changing.  And now that CBS is owned by Viacom (which has holdings in TV, Radio, Movie, Music, Internet, Magazine and Book publishing) pressure can be exerted by celebrities or against celebrities. 

We have been discussing in class how corporations have taken on individual/human characteristics well, mega-star celebrities are the best example of individuals as corporations.  Tom Cruise is the perfect example - prior to his 2005 PR meltdown (more on that in a bit) Tom Cruise was a brand/corporation- invested in by share holders who received a return on product "Tom Cruise".  Tom Cruise plays the same thing in every movie (basically good guy who faces some sort of challenge which is met with righteous indignation; a fight and subsequent win over the system doing things his way). Tom had worked with the same publicist, Pat Kingsly, since the start of his career.  Pat, who had a roster of clients beyond Tom, was known in Hollywood as the best - able to build, deflect and enhance her clients' images.  Tom fired Kingsly and hired his sister in Kingsly's place and in short time 1) took on Brooke Shields; 2) had the Scientology video released and 3) jumped on Oprah's couch after which he 1) dropped dramatically in Q score (measures public popularity) 2) saw his Mission Impossible 3 movie show a sharp decline in box office domestic and world wide and 3) got "released" from his production deal (and office) at Vicaom with both Sumner Redstone and Steven Spielberg (arguably two of the most powerful men in Hollywood) labeling him "nuts."  Word on the street in LA is that Tom Cruise has indeed always been "crazy" and Pat was able to keep that under wraps.  Tom has subsequently and quietly fired his sister and hired a seasoned PR veteran.  All of this to say, that PR, similar to advertising is one of those jobs that everyone thinks he or she can do, when again it is a various specialized career. 

That said, PR and publicity is one of the areas in Hollywood where women dominate.  Publicist of course do not get paid as much as agents or managers but they are a critical component of the team.  Millions of dollars are spent on these celebrities and it is the role of the publicist to control the spin.  Another quick BET story:  Mariah Carey was a guest on our dance program and she did arrive with an entourage of stylist; managers, record exec's and publicists.  According to someone Mariah's left side is her bad side so there was one women whose job it was to ensure that the camera never captured that side.  If it did she would yell (well scream) stop tape.  We would stop (the hair stylist would run out and fluff up Mariah's hair; the make up artist would run out and powder) and we could then resume.  It was exhausting (for me!).  Anyway, I was chatting with one of the mignons, at the time Mariah had just signed like a $40MM contract and Arista was simply protecting its investment - and to be honest - Mariah Carey  indeed treated like a thing something not human but a product like a can of soda or a bagel - you can see how celebrities get crazy. 

Lest one believes celebrities to be frivolous  this goes on here in DC as well - all of the PR agencies around here have a solid roster of politicians, lobbyists and lobbying groups - and instead of focusing on Mariah's hair, it is the styling of Justice Roberts family at his swearing in {all of that blond hair!! :)} or Tom Delay dancing on Dancing with the Stars or the incessant coverage of the Obama dog - you can rest assured that publicist (or press secretaries) were heavily involved. 

It is unfortunate that PR has moved from the tool to inform to a tool to sell and persuade- what that does is make it ever more difficult to simply get information to make a decision about something for one's self. 

Women in the writers room, the Letterman saga continues

Below please find a link to a story in Vanity Fair: Not only does it link back to Dave but it also is similar to the arguments in the Sears post. (sigh....)

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2009/10/david-letterman-200910?currentPage=1

Here comes the bride.....

Whenever I hear Wedgewood it brings to mind the plethora of weddings attended during my late 20's and early 30's and the sheer percentage of my disposable income that went to china, vases, flatware and linens.  Not to mention, hotels, restaurants, dresses ("you can wear again" - ha!), Baker dyed to match shoes, Hanes pantyhose, seamstresses, airlines and bars.  Seriously, it costs women way more to particpate in weddings than men by far and I can say that I spent over $15,000 easily and to be clear I am not married!

The average wedding in the US today has an average of 175 invited guests, costs $28,000 with the average married couple making $55,000 - so one half of their annual salary is going towards a big party.  The Wedding industry has done an outstanding job (similar to the pharmaceutical industry) in establishing the must have's for the BIG day.

Bridal fairs and conventions; blogs, tv specials and websites and the entire business of wedding planning.  Full disclosure I was a caterer and did indeed cater weddings. 

And as a participant  (friend) and a guest it is unfortunate to see the hundred of thousands of dollars that get spent because a bride (mostly) but sometime groom feels it an obligation to host the biggest and best wedding ever.  But worse, are the subsequent breeches of etiquette in order to have an event that the couple cannot afford.  (For example, one couple requested each attendee please send in a check for his/her meal and add $5 if you ordered the salmon!) 

The idea of the wedding (consumable) takes the place of the the idea of a marriage and subsequently we have tv shows celebrating mean and hateful brides berating their friends (?) family and soon to be husband.  But it's ok because your wedding is the MOST important event of your life - spare no expense; spare no feelings; it must be PERFECT!

I do have stories of people whose $75,000 wedding lasted less than six months and of course the $100 Vegas quickie is going quite happily.  It would be lovely if the cost of the wedding was directly tied to it's happiness.

And I can say this, as someone who literally spent every three day holiday weekend between the ages of 27 and 32 at a wedding either as a guest or a participant there is absolutely positively NO ONE who says, boy I wished I had spent more on that day.

EEOC vs. Sears (1973)

A landmark case regarding employment discrimination (gender based) was filed against Sears for their employmnet rule preventing women from selling "high end" (read high commission) goods such as washing machines and refrigerators.  The case has been studied in many venues however due to the fact that two prominent feminist theorist testifed for each side the case is studied today in multiple disciplines:  Below is a snippet from an article written by "Ruth Milken"

Women's history and the issue of difference figured prominently in Sears's trial defense, based primarily on the claim that the underrepresentation of women in high-paying commission sales jobs was not due to discrimination, as the EEOC charged, but to women's own job preferences.

 

Two well-known feminist historians, Rosalind Rosenberg and Alice Kessler-Harris, testified as expert witnesses in the case, presenting conflicting historical interpretations of women's relationship to work and the relative importance of workers' and employers' roles in shaping patterns of employment by sex.

 

Rosenberg, testifying for Sears, argued that the EEOC's case incorrectly assumed that women and men were alike in their values and job preferences and thus did not prove Sears had engaged in sex discrimination:

 

    "Men and women differ in their expectations concerning work, in their interests as    to the types of jobs they prefer or the types of products they prefer to sell,"

 

Rosenberg's "Offer of Proof' stated: "It is naive to believe that the natural effect of these differences is evidence of discrimination by Sears." This testimony was an important component of Sears's argument that the firm had not denied women opportunities for better-paid commission sales jobs, as the EEOC alleged, but that women simply "were less likely to prefer or have relevant experience in commission sales positions."

 

 Faced with Sears's invocation of the historical record, the EEOC presented its own expert witness, Alice Kessler-Harris, who argued that Rosenberg's testimony neglected the central issue of employers' willingness to hire on a nondiscriminatory, sex-blind basis:

 

     '"What appear to be women's choices, and what are characterized as women's 'interests' are, in fact, heavily influenced by the opportunities for work made available to them," Kessler-Harris testified. '"Where opportunity has existed, women have never failed to take the jobs offered. . . . Failure to find women in so-called non-traditional jobs can thus only be interpreted as a consequence of employers' unexamined attitudes or preferences, which phenomenon is the essence of discrimination."

 

This IS one of the argument streams in fighting discrimination cases " that the denied group just is NOT interested in the position."  Which for the rational choice theorist and free market theorist should not make sense.  Why would a sales person NOT want the opportunity to sell higher end or more lucrative products in the place of business in which they are already employed?  A free marketer should have felt that a women should have the opportunity to at least try to sell these items come what may.  In addition, I am suspecting as our reading next week that women were the consumers of these products it has been demonstrated in certain selling situations demographic commanalities go some distance in selling. 

 

The case was filed in 1973 with many years of out of court negotiations and attempts at settlement.  It finally came before the court in late 1979 in a political enviornment hostile to claims of discrimination.  It also must be noted that Clarence Thomas not only felt that the suit was invalid (as the head of the EEOC!) but also felt that it was inappropiate to use statistical evidence to support or document discrimination (sigh....) so one can assume what the finding was.

 

If you are interested there are a few good articles I can recommend and it is a fascinating story:  For example, Rosenberg was involved with a member on the Sears board and had utilized a colleagues work without telling her what she was going to do with it. Harris also had some questionable ties that made her story less objective as well. 

 

This of course is the extremely (bordering on dangerous) reductive telling of this story:  BUT, it does remind that gender (and other types of course) discrimination has a storied history and will continue to influence all occupations and thus all corporations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

Huh - I think I need that....

A few years ago I was home watching television.  I had just started my doctoral work, as well as started as the Acting Dean at NOVA.  A commercial came on:  It was a balloon type face with a small frown and the voice over came on "Are you tired and listless?" {me: uh, yeah}   (the balloon floated morosely on) "Do you sometimes not want to join the group and socialize?" {well, yeah sometimes see listless and tired}  (the balloon floated on) "Do you no longer enjoy activities that you used to? {reading popped in my head as I was in the process of reading  one German existentialist or another -so again, yeah} as the balloon floated on. 

Finally the voice over says if you have two or more of these symptoms contact your doctor and ask for Paxil and enjoy life again (or something to that effect) ending with a very perky balloon bouncing away with a smile.

Now, depression is a serious illness, and in the recent past had a certain stigma attached.  However, it has been documented through marketing research that the number of people who are demanding anti-depression medication is significantly higher than the number of people who are/would be diagnosed as clinical depressed. (Note:  The demand for medication is even higher when it comes to sleeping aids like Ambien and Lunestra.)  It has been reported for both drug classes that if or when a patient comes in and asks for a particular drug the physician is more likely (there is a number but I do not remember the name of the study) to prescribe any drug than if a patient arrives to the doctors office describing symptoms of depression or sleeplessness.  When a patient shares symptoms alternative therapies are recommended or discussed prior to the writing of a prescription.

Per our reading this week, Susan Strasser writes of creating a market and the pharmaceutical industry is one that has indeed embraced this concept.  Ever since drugs have "been allowed" to advertise the utilization of the pull strategy (having consumers demand or pull your product through the market) the pharmaceutical industry has gone gang busters identifying all sorts of ailments and illnesses to which a simple pill will "help." 

Unfortunately, much of the hype is based on the reduction or management of a serious ailment or disease which however only a small percentage of the population has.  Fibromyalgia for example, it is estimated that 2-4% of the population has fibromyalgia (why do I even know that disease?  And do not get me started on about "E.D.!) with Lyrica utilizing a fairly aggressive (targeted to women) ad campaign.  Again, from what I've "heard" it appears that this is a painful and debilitating disease, it is however, not that widespread, enough for me to know both the name and the "cure." Also, it's too much to go into here but if you are interested I can tell you about the "scam" that is Gardisil (the cevical cancer "vaccination)

One of my best friends is a doctor and I asked her about Paxil and she said that the ad even made here want to take a pill and she knows better. 

It does help to be on the inside of the marketing/advertising world because it does allow some perspective.  We as a society really need to work at honing our analytical skills as well as become more proactive in what we know.  Use advertising as the start point for information and proceed from there.

The End of the World...

I will take a little detour from my gender based blog (but please do take a look at the you tube video at the end) in honor of today's story in advertising age "Why it's time to do away with the brand manager"

http://adage.com/cmostrategy/article?article_id=139593

If actually implemented this is a HUGE deal.  This column brought forth the paragraph in the introduction of Endless Novelty about studying elephant life-ways and the designation of those ways as the most important ways. 

P&G, elephantine in the consumer goods category, has a training, and organizational structure that is emulated from a distance by many other corporations;  unfortunately there is often a key attribute missing (i.e strict promotions from within) which makes the resulting copy somewhat chaotic and definitely inefficient.   Again, I believe I read in Scranton about lifting pieces out of management and simply placing them elsewhere are expecting the same result.  (I'm sorry, I do not know if that was Scranton or not) 

Scranton states in his introduction "Huge corporations and their triple investments in management, technology and marketing cannot be trivialized  but neither ought their practices to become standards until we have carefully investigated other formats for industrial development."  Now of course I understand that Scranton was writing about the second industrial revolution, but arguably today's technology (specifically information technology) has forced a change in the view of the landscape, a change strong enough to at least begin questioning a structural change in a company which prides itself on over 150 years of structure.

The column about eliminating brand management is under the CMO heading or Chief Marketing Office(r) category a relatively new title (last 5-7 years or so) opposed to the Digital Media column where most discussions about social networking sites reside. I would argue that P&G (and other consumer product companies) use management, marketing and technology - in that order to manage their businesses.  In addition, P&G arguably strives to routinize processes to the point of specialization - everyone at Proctor is trained both a specialist (brand) AND generalist (P&G'er).  That is their competitive advantage.  And it is the combination of "attacking" the specialty producers with the expertise of the specialist and the resources of P&G and either driving the competitors  out of business or buying them that hampers the continued success of specialty manufacturers.  It should be noted however, that specialty service businesses ARE the life blood of Proctor, which uses many small, women and minority based firms to execute advertising, promotions and other ancillary services.

Unfortunately, in terms of distribution, for consumer goods, the deck is stacked against the non-elephants as distribution has been taken over by an elephant as well (Wal-Mart), which leads to mass production for mass distribution. 

Interestingly, it is the advent of a new technology (social networking) that the leaders of these companies (Men, white in their mid 50's) do not know "what to do with."  The infiltration of Facebook and My-Space into the culture, make these corporate leaders feel like they are missing out on something and if they could just crack that code as to how best to exploit the medium all will be well, stock prices and profits will soar.  I think, because this medium unlike advertising and television in the 1950's which was run and controlled by people "just like themselves" is run by a different demographic of a different generation kind of freaks them out.

It will be very interesting to watch and see if elephants can really change. 

Finally in honor of my old brand at Proctor (Folgers) I have attached a video of an old Folgers commercial to keep tradition alive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5idyptK15w

"Dating" the boss?

A very close friend of mine, after an extremely protracted and relatively contentious discussion about the David Letterman "situation" said "not only do you need to turn in your feminist card you are a closet conservative."  This last statement was the culmination of my position that dating a "boss" or a boss asking a subordinate out does not actually constitute sexual harassment.  NOW, before my lawyer friends beg to differ I am quite aware of the statues and laws and corporate policies stating any "advance" if construed by the advances as untoward or hostile is considered sexual harassment.   The fact that it appears that in the Letterman case (as well in the anecdotal cases that I am aware of) the boss and the subordinate were in an actual dating relationship and it appears that there was no negative pressure or quid pro quo arrangement so I do struggle with the label of harassment.  That said, my friend claimed that the in equal power relationship made any relationship of this kind harassment, and started liking it to high school teachers and minors.  NO - not the same, there are laws to protect minors and the women in the Letterman case were all obviously adults.  The next argument from my friend (a male) was well maybe these women have no other options; they may need their jobs and thus said yes due to this pressure.  Now, again, if the subordinate says no, and is subsequently fired, demoted or harassed (in the dictionary definition) then yes the asking was indeed harassment.  But I stand by my possession that the simple act of asking does constitute harassment. 

I then had to take the question to a group of girlfriends, which of course is not really helpful because chances are people who are your friends have a similar bend - and quite honestly ANYONE of my friends who has worked in a corporation comes down on my side that simple asking is not harassment AND that sexual harassment is one of the least of the concerns for women in the workplace. Dealing with insensitivity, work balance, overall respect of work product and output are of way more concern.  And to be fair, the women in my query were of a high enough level and experience to indeed have power and confidence in their ability as well as options.  But again, when dealing with the roles and positions of the majority of women in the workplace (pink collar jobs) it is not the sexual harassment they are dealing with; it is things such as unequal pay for equal work; forced overtime without pay (where non compliance will mean termination); inflexible or changes to work schedules; no sick leave and/or insurance ; OSHA violations and safety; etc.  Although I have tremendous issues with her methods Nickel and Dimed by Ehrenreich is a nice overview to get a peek into the lives of working women. Throughout her "adventures" and travails I do not believe the issue of sexual harassment came up.

So no, I will not give up my feminist card as I believe that we as women have to stand up to the harassment in whatever form.  I think my concern is by labeling all as harassment, we indeed diminish the power of the word as well as the deed.  

Harassment of all types needs to be called out (anywhere it is seen) and ceased and no one should have to work in a negative or hateful environment.  Can one be a giant of industry if the environment where one works is toxic?  Does the increase in women in the workforce make that question more relevant?  Do women care more about harmonious environments than men?  Should we care who David Letterman is or has slept with?  Or should we care more that his head writer for many years was a women (who won an many awards and is well respected in her field) in an industry where women are still to this day marginalized ?

In my time in corporate life, sexual shenanigans were indeed a part of the workplace; and I know at least two couples who eventually married their subordinates (one man AND one woman).  Was it messy ? Yes, but it worked out and life is messy, so I say, leave the label harassment for true harassment and if love finds it way through the workplace then so be it.

PS:  I have never dated a boss nor a subordinate! :)

   

"We're not Unicorns"

So much to discuss, it should be an interesting evening with Professor O'Malley!  So in keeping with my gender based blog I am going to focus on one of the ideas that was not specifically covered in "Specie and Species" but covered by Painter and that idea of "value" and race" but the added dimension of "value", race and gender.  As stated I am looking forward to discussing these articles with the class and the professor.  Really, what is intrinsic about the value of fine art? Or gold? Or Race? beyond the fact that these cultural "touchstones" have been designated by the cultural elite (aka  powerful) to hold such value and thus these values are socially reproduced throughout time. where arguably their value becomes intrinsic.   Language is an ABSOLUTE and Powerful component of this reproduction or  transmission (note for another discussion; the debate regarding English as a Second language) and so there is no doubt of intent during reconstruction (and even today)  - the maintenance of power of the culturally elite.

During the previous class when we were discussing the tenure situation and I said that I believed the tenure system had changed (much more demanding in terms of output) due to the entrance of more (and more) women and I would go as far to say in the hard sciences and computers due to more and more foreign born, specifically Asian students it really is an intrinsic value based response (by the "old" guard) to maintain power.  Tenure is the "value" and we, the elite (who have that value) are going to up the ante.  Of course, just as there were valid economic points and rationales during reconstruction to eliminate greenbacks there are many economic rationales for institutions of higher learning today.  BUT, in terms of construction it is the fear first followed by economic justification (which by the way is the most powerful justification for maintenance of or return to the status quo in our culture,  note HEALTHCARE!)   

But I will save some other thoughts for our discussion - on to the title of this post.  More magazine, a general interest magazine targeted to women over 40, had an article in the October issue entitled : The Visible Women.  First, it is of great note that a mainstream (read White) magazine dedicated a full length article to this topic.  (That is ANOTHER blog for another day - media segregation)  But second, I believe the article highlights a positive result of Affirmative Action IN TERMS OF allowing access and exposure to the cultural elites (first through educational venues and then through the work place) which then allowed cultural elites to DISCOVER the sameness as the Language (big L) of elitism is now shared.  Interestingly, many of these women are one degree of separation from each other prior to all working for Obama and I believe that Michelle is a force behind some of the Presidents decisions.  It is a very positive and interesting article not only for black girl power but for girl power in general.

 http://www.more.com/2050/8161-an-obama-effect-for-black

I look forward to seeing you all in class. 

PS:  I apologize for leaving abruptly last week; I occasionally get terrible migraines.  When I was younger I was able to power through - no more so again I am sorry.