Special Topic: Football vs Kneeball

Lot’s of sniping about NFL and NBA players “taking a knee” during the national anthem.  When this first popped up, my initial response was:  kneeling is more reverential. Why be upset about it?

I don't consider kneeling as disrespectful.  I kneel at church all the time. I'm not protesting God.  If you want to protest, take a seat on the bench, or dance the Bartman.  But, this is the method that was chosen, so be it.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of flag burning, or national anthem sitting.  But, I understand the statement.  I understand the little kid in my 5th grade class who was a Jehovah’s Witness.  He didn’t stand during the pledge and the class turned out ok.  The fabric of American society did not crumble.  People have protested for YEARS (as in two hundred of them) and America hasn’t fallen a part yet.  We’ve had a few close calls, but we’ve made it through.

A subset of citizens feel that “liberty and justice for all” doesn’t apply to them, or isn’t applied equitably.  Given statistics on incarceration - 1 in 3 black men are likely to be imprisoned as opposed to 1 in 9 of all men, or 1 in 17 of white men - they have a case.  Another statistic that ran across my attention recently, is that after WWII, out of the first 67,000 loans provided through the G.I. bill, only 100 were for non-white applicants. Yes, 100.

Take stats like these on top of the civil rights movement not even being 100 years old yet, fights over confederate statues in town squares, recent shootings by police of young black men (regardless of the justification) and white supremacists making their way back into mainstream media, we have American citizens who are hurting.  And, these people who are hurting are those least likely to have a platform that can push for change.

Those who have the platform, and understand what their communities are suffering with, have an obligation to bring it to the national stage. Regardless of what career they find themselves in, they have an obligation to do what is right and just for those who can't speak for themselves.

So many of you are saying how shameful it is for an NFL player kneel during the anthem since so many people died for his freedom to even play football.

You want to know what I find more shameful?  NOT using those rights that so many gave their lives to ensure.  Freedom means nothing if it isn’t exercised.  I don’t always agree with the motivations, or vehicle, but I agree you have a right to do so.  I will also respect the fact you may not agree with me, but we need to allow others the ability to exercise their freedoms based on their conscious.

At the end of the day, the most important takeaway is this:  people didn’t die for a flag or a song.  They died for the freedoms those symbols were created to represent.

Let’s keep it that way.

Angela’s shoes

Yes, I watched the September Apple event live.  Tweeted up a firestorm about it. Mainly snark.. but hey.. I was engaged right?  I’m also really looking forward to the series 3 watch.  I can’t wait to get one, and have it send out an alert every time some cute random guy wants to talk to me.  

“No, I’m not having a cardiac event, it’s your “ask for my number” alarm.”

Yeah, this is why I'm still single.  Anywhooo...

Back to the event…

When Apple’s head of retail, Angela Ahrendts, stepped on stage to go through changes to retail operations, all I could focus on were her shoes.  They were some kick ass shoes.  I loved them.  They were back matte (maybe a suede) open toed boot-heel. Did I mention I loved them?  I paid absolutely no attention to the presentation.  Just thought about the shoes.  How I wish I had the balance to wear that skinny (and high) of a heel, on stage.  Then I thought, this is one reason why I could never be an exec - I could never wear that type of shoe.

*insert record scratch audio*

What.  Did.  I.  Just.  Say?  I think I need to rethink this….

Ahrendts gets through her presentation, walks offstage, and Tim Cook comes back.  His shoes?  Looked like a pair of Vans from a distance.  Every other exec’s (all others were male) shoe wear?  Flat tennis/Van like kicks, everyone. I didn’t notice any dress shoes.

Overall, the menswear was more casual than Ahrendts.

Some of the dress code differences may have just been personal style, but I’ve noticed similar trends in my own life.  Women tend to dress “better” than most men in business situations, at least in my industry.  Most women in positions of power, wear heels. I’ve also noticed that when I dress ‘fancier’, people do treat me differently.

Why?

I have no real hard data as why, but it seemingly isn’t a figment of my imagination.

Apparently, women who wear more masculine attire tend to be hired more than women whose attire is more feminine.  We suffer from an additional double standard that men are allowed to wear basically the same clothes day in and out (from top execs to presidents), but women aren’t.

So, we have to dress more like men in order to get hired, dress more like women after we do and better not wear the same thing twice?  Are people really watching what I'm wearing THAT closely?  Talk about creepy.

Is wardrobe yet another form of unconscious discrimination?

I don’t know, but I still wish I had Angela’s shoes.

CIOs need better SOX

By now, you’ve probably visited www.equifaxsecurity2017.com to see if you’ve been compromised.

UGH. 143 Million people. Three Equifax execs poured salt in the wound by selling stock pretty close the the release date of the information. Everyone's a'twitter on Twitter to see if this violated insider trading regulations.

That’s when it hit me.  Why aren’t companies (especially publicly traded ones, or ones that deal with sensitive personal information) required to have a C-suite level chief information officer (CIO) who is held at the same level of accountability for security and sensitive data breaches as CFOs are for business reporting.  Sure, we have criteria and regulations that companies need to follow (FIPS, Common Criteria, ISO, HIPPA, etc), but what really results from this other than plummeting stocks and fines on the company itself?

If a CFO or a CEO signs off on negligent SEC filing - a whole heap of hurt will result that personally affects one or both (clawbacks and/or criminal charges). What happens with a data breach?  Fines for the company?  Loss of stock value to shareholders?

What happens to the individuals who make decisions that expose their customers?  Get fired?  Most C-suite folks are in the 1%.  They are more than capable of retiring and living on an island somewhere even if they never find another job anywhere. So what level of true personal accountability is there for them?

Let’s put it all on the table - the real underlying societal issue here, is the lack of responsibility of the 1% towards the rest of us little people. This is why we have so many SEC regulations.

When we (the little guys) need money - for a home, car, starting a new business, or covering unexpected expenses - we have to take the “anonymous” mass commercial route.  We have to go to banks and financial institutions, not people we know.

We don’t meet other rich people on the golf course.  We don’t have brunch at the country club with financiers.  We (typically) didn’t pledge with Manfred Moneybags III.  We don’t have the easy connections to get personal loans and investors.

Our credit and digital identity are the only things the mass market institutions have to determine whether or not they want to part with their money.  Our financial history is the only thing that determines whether we are a better bet than someone else with their capital.

If our credit goes south due to identity theft, we don’t have a bank of lawyers on retainer to take care of it.  We don’t really have people who know us well enough to be able to personally vouch or to provide the financing we need.

Bad credit ratings due to identity theft is crippling.  Just read this horror story.  Let’s multiply this by 140+ million people.  140+ million people who are not rich or well connected.

So, yeah.  When a company suffers a major breach and opens up the little guy to such pain and heartache, we should take it seriously.  We should take it seriously enough to place appropriate consequences upon those that hold the power in making decisions.  We should take it just as seriously as reporting financial information truthfully.

This falls to the CIO and CEO.

All publicly traded companies, and private companies that handle sensitive customer information (or provide these services (or software) to other companies), should be required to have the Office of CIO.  That CIO should, along with CEO, be required to sign off on all audits and bear personal responsibility for data breaches - similar to Sarbanes-Oxley.

These breaches have to stop and they probably won’t until the personal consequences become much higher in the C-Suite. #SoX4CIOs

The Curious Case of Melinda Gates

Another Melinda Gates article came across my feed this morning with the typically headline “I wouldn’t be where I am without contraception.”  Which is odd, considering the lack of contraception is the reason why she's physically here.  But, I digress.  Her main point, as I understand it, is that unplanned pregnancies are huge financial burdens on women and families. To alleviate the burden, don't have the children.  And, without access to abortifacients and abortions, it's hard not to have the children.

Now, those of you who know me, are probably getting your torches and pitchforks ready, as you are assuming what's going to come out of my mouth and that you already know you aren't going to like it.

Before you flick your Bic to light up the blaze, let me be very clear about something: I don’t believe people who consider themselves pro-choice/pro-contraceptive are bad people.  I understand it comes from a place of pragmatism and an underlying want to help women.  I get it.  I'm not here to cast judgement (for once).

I just want to give a different perspective.  Long term, I believe, pushing this agenda is actually harming not just women, but our society without actually fixing the underlying issue.

I’m reminded of a conversation I had earlier this summer with a young girl.  She told me “I probably won’t have kids.”  Of course, my follow up question was “Why?”  I didn’t ask this to be judgemental, I asked out of curiosity.  Most young girls I’ve spoken to over the course of my life want to be moms in addition to being doctors, lawyers and veterinarians.  The toy market is still filled with baby-flavored dolls and accoutrements.

I’ll admit, one could have a chicken & egg argument at this point regarding what little girls want versus what they are taught to want in toy stores.

“It will interfere with my career.”

*insert jaw drop*

I was a little stunned.  I have friends who have made this decision as adults, and there isn’t anything intrinsically wrong with it. I was just shocked that someone so young would even be thinking about the effects of children on one’s career.  Especially since she’s too young to have even know what career she wants.  But, she's a smart kid who has been taught something by society.

When successful women, like Gates, take such public stances, young women (especially girls) are listening.  When friends and parents struggle, they are watching.  What they see and hear comes across as one very scary lesson:  “Children undermine your potential”.  “Having children is bad.”  “If you have kids, you will struggle.”

While I would wish it otherwise, we have a society where this lesson is largely correct for women - exceedingly so for women either in, or just above, poverty.

We've all heard of the gender pay gap.  But, there’s an additional tax if you have kids.  Listening to the The Mommy Tax episode of the podcast Stuff Mom Never told You, I was shocked to hear that mothers are affected by the gender pay gap 5 times that of women without kids.  FIVE TIMES.  Five times on top of the already existing gap.

And, by the way, men with children get a pay raise in comparison to childless men. *cough*

So wages start out lower and/or slow overtime for mothers.  Add in the non-recurring and recurring costs of rearing a child (or children) and you have a recipe for financial crisis, especially if she is single (side note: in 2013 CDC reported 85% of women who had abortions were unmarried).  When pregnancy happens, the woman ends up bearing the responsibility physically, emotionally and financially.  An unplanned pregnancy can push a woman over the edge into the pit of poverty, or dig her another 10 feet deeper into it.

I can agree with Gates that we have a global problem.  I don’t agree with how to address it.  Abortion and abortifacients are one way to cope with the issue, but this seems short sighted.  As I pointed out earlier, this approach seems to propagate the idea that women shouldn’t have kids and their base physiology is harmful to their prosperity.

At this point, you are probably thinking (or, more than likely, eye-rolling), “Well, Miss SmartyPants, what should we be doing?”

Why don’t we start by not placing (or forcing) all the responsibility on women?

Why aren’t we fighting harder for equal pay (especially for mothers)?  Why aren’t we fighting for better work-life labor requirements?  Why aren’t we fighting for paternity leaves that allow women to return to work while fathers stay home?  Why aren't we fighting harder for affordable quality healthcare so that the cost of having and caring for a child isn't a financial death sentence?

Did you know the US Military spends $84M on erectile dysfunction medications, annually? How about redirecting those funds to help continue to level out responsibility - such as more research in male contraception or tracking down deadbeat fathers?  How about removing some of the stigmas surrounding vasectomies?

Yea, I know I've lost a few of my Catholic peeps with that last one, but we have to remember, not everyone is Catholic.

In 2013, we spent $2 BILLION (globally) on male pattern baldness.  Why not provide those funds (or a portion) to global organizations that provide educational opportunities along with child care options in safe spaces?

How about working to create better economies where jobs are available that can provide for families? Or, funding startups run by women (or even men) in crisis?

Through our actions, let's teach our daughters that while motherhood is a life sentence - it isn't a death sentence.