Gender equality in the workplace has made large strides over the course of the feminist movement yet studies still show a stagnation in the hierarchical achievement of women over their careers compared to their male peers. Most emphasis on correcting this inequality focuses on critiquing the actions of business leaders rather than empowering women to take everyday actions towards equality. Tactics such as utilizing technology, employing androgynous communication styles, identifying mentors, and negotiating opportunities supports gender equality with a bottom-up approach. Gender equality is an economic imperative to both women and the organizations they serve, because companies with a high representation of female leadership financially outperform those without. Women have achieved enormous strides in gender equality particularly in the past 40 years as it pertains to career advancement. The history of what is considered the formal feminist movement dates back to the 19th and 20th centuries where female leaders such as Mary Wollstonecraft and Susan B. Anthony worked tirelessly for women’s suffrage. The movement was separated into two distinctive efforts: one conservative and the other radical. Some feminists of this time period worked within the law; they utilized support from men who empathized with the cause and targeted federal suffrage by hosting public lectures, lobbying politicians, and creating petitions. However, State-by-state efforts were significantly more radical employing strategies like picketing, rallying, and attempting to participate in elections without the right to legally vote. The 19th and 20th centuries were considered the first wave of feminism – efforts focused primarily on changing laws that prevented gender equality. Suffrage was finally achieved in the United States in 1920 with the 19th Amendment. | Taking control of the gender equality conversation can be the discourse of every working woman |
0 Comments
2/9/2016 0 Comments Keeping Up With The Kandidates "I'm just here, 'cause he's promised me a spot in his cabinet. And I belong in a cabinet, 'cause I'm full of spice and I've got a great rack!" gawked Tina Fey in her much anticipated reprisal role as the former republican governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin (Vulpo). The skit that aired in early January on Saturday Night Live depicted Palin’s endorsement trip to Iowa in support of Donald Trump. Fey’s cameo led to yet another triumph in a string of campaign-fueled high ratings for the otherwise grappling program (Nededog). Reaching millions of Americans, comedians and other celebrities are using their fandom to launch themselves into the political arena by tying their name and brands to primary candidates this election season. This type of association between popular culture and American politics has arguably never been closer begging us to wonder if the relationship is actually healthy for democracy. The interjection of celebrity is detrimental to the democratic process because the clout of American icons persuades voters from focusing on important issues at hand. Celebrities have been involved in presidential races for more than a third of American history. The very first celebrity endorsement came from Al Jolson in 1920 (Boardman). The Harding campaign commissioned the song “Harding, you’re the man for us” from the musician who at the time was considered America’s most famous and highest paid entertainer. Jolson, known for his relatable jazz, blues and ragtime tunes, was an active conservative throughout his lifetime supporting three candidates turned president. His involvement in politics revolutionized the way those seeking office reached voters. Icons from Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra and Johnny Cash to Oprah, Adam Sandler, and Chuck Norris have campaigned, fundraised and actively supported presidential hopefuls (A&E). Some candidates are intentional about celebrity involvement – Richard Nixon even had a “Celebrities for Nixon Committee” during his campaign. Meanwhile other candidates prefer a subtler approach; an upcoming Red Hot Chili Peppers concert is doubling as a Bernie Sanders support rally in Los Angeles later this month (RHCP News). Whether it is the stars supporting the candidates or in some cases becoming the candidates (looking at you Reagan), it seems that elections are now intricately tied with stardom. The best tracked and documented evidence of celebrity persuading voters for an altered outcome is Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Barack Obama prior to the 2008 Democratic presidential primary (Garthwaite & Moore). Obama, an ambitious, freshman U.S. Senator out of Chicago, IL, was not a household American name when he began the journey towards his presidency. The three term Illinois state senator lost his first race on Washington when he attempted to run for a House seat in 2000. Ultimately, Obama was rewarded with a seat in the Senate in 2004 heralded as the “most liberal” sitting member of congress. Winfrey crossed paths with the Obamas in Illinois during these important campaign years and became an active supporter of the couple – even mentioning her admiration for the Senator during a guest appearance on Larry King Live in 2006. Winfrey officially endorsed Obama’s candidacy three months after his announcement to run for the office of the president in May of 2007. Coincidentally, Oprah was named Forbes most powerful celebrity of the year both in 2007 (primary year) and 2008 (presidential election year) (Forbes). How did Forbes determine Ms. Winfrey’s power? According to Craig Garthwaite and Timothy Moore, researchers at the Kellogg School of Business at Northwestern, “Oprah Winfrey is a celebrity of nearly unparalleled influence.” The researchers attribute her persuasion by her appearance in Time magazine’s list of 100 most influential people, the sales spikes of items featured on “Oprah Favorites” list, altered sales of books in her monthly book club, total magazine subscriptions, and the number of total TV viewers for her daytime talk show. Garthwaite and Moore used an empirical formula to estimate what the influence of Oprah’s endorsement of Obama had on her fans. They checked their calculations with falsification exercises including fans’ existing preferences for democratic platforms, bias towards other candidates, and the role of race as it pertains to Oprah Magazine readership. The results of the study were both “statistically and politically significant” and demonstrated how the endorsement directly altered the outcome of the primary election. Winfrey’s support increased voter participation by 2,196,300 additional voters during the primary election – that’s slightly larger than the entire population of Houston. In addition to her effect on participation, it is estimated that Oprah’s endorsement is responsible for 1,015,559 popular votes for senator Barack Obama. For reference, Obama only beat Hillary in the primary election by 278,966 popular votes. Without Oprah, we could have seen a presidential race between John McCain and Hillary Clinton and changed the course of Modern-American history. Obama’s primary run demonstrates three essential consequences of celebrity endorsement: 1) celebrity impacts voter participation, 2) celebrity clout persuades voter decisions, 3) celebrity is a tool wielded for political gain. It is up to the voter and the politician to exercise caution when utilizing celebrities to improve the democratic process rather than dilute it. Voters should be aware that celebrities tend to lean left in the political spectrum. The balance of party support by artists is heavily skewed toward more liberal candidates due to use of government programs, the influence of large cities, and the pursuit of non–industry careers (Wister). When an individual follows creative or artistic ambitions rather than industrial ones, it is expected that their compensation will be less reliable than careers in traditional trades. Many artists are more likely to use government programs to support their path to stardom or view these programs as a backup in case of failed pursuits. There is also a tendency for celebrities live and work in socially progressive cities such as New York City and Los Angeles. The diverse and culturally open-minded environments of these major cities are conducive to liberal values. Many artists perceive living in cultural hubs a requirement for breaking into their respective industries and are subsequently introduced to the values of city life. In addition to safety nets and major cities, the extreme wealth achieved through stardom, not brought about through traditional industry work, can create a sense of idealism around the involvement of government. It is not up to me to say if the balance of celebrity in the spectrum of political ideals is right or wrong, however it is clear that when young voters are introduced to politics via icons of popular culture it will likely be in association with a democratic agenda. An example of this type of introduction takes place in an original video series recently released by the mobile-app sensation Snapchat. Snapchat’s discover channel titled “Good Luck America” releases a series of 10-second or less videos telling a story hoping to educate the young, voting population. This particular episode featured an 18-year-old University of Iowa student supporting Bernie Sanders. When asked why she chose to caucus for Sanders, the student described her interest in the free Florence and the Machine concert that coincided with a Sanders rally event. She mentions that prior to the event she was not intending on getting involved in this primary election, however she heard his platform before the concert and was excited by his ideals. Peter Hamby, former CNN reporter and narrator of Good Luck America, did not discuss with the young voter whether or not she looked into the platforms of other candidates. Do we consider her actions participation in democracy or merely entertainment that resulted in a vote? Florence and the Machine is certainly aware that they are tying their brand to a political ideology hoping to persuade fans of their music to also consider their beliefs. However, there are many artists who have incidentally supported politicians. Celebrity endorsement of a candidate is potentially risky for the brand and the business of the artists. The majority of music utilized by political campaigns in advertisements, public forums and speeches, and radio commercials are not explicitly verified by the musicians themselves. For example, if a candidate like Donald Trump rents out an auditorium for a public rally and that venue has a public performance license through a songwriters’ association, he has the opportunity to play any song the association has included in their package regardless of the political affiliation of the artists (ASCAP). If the artist is ideologically opposed to Donald Trump, they are left with two options: a) make a public statement or request for Trump to discontinue use of the song and draw additional media attention to his campaign, b) pursue costly and public litigation to remove the work from the candidates’ arsenal, or c) do nothing and continue to be lightly associated with the candidate. This association can be dangerous for the artist’s reputation if it promotes values that they do not align with through their work. It can also confuse the voter’s decisions if the voter cannot determine if a group they are fans of also supports candidates of their liking. Democracy, defined by its Greek roots, hands major decision-making to citizens (“demos” means people and “kratia” stands for power or authority) (US History). Trusting constituents to know about critical issues and to vote smart is a core assumption of the political process. When politicians introduce celebrities to support their campaigns, they shroud the focus on issues related to their candidacy with a cloud of deception. Voters must be able to separate celebrity involvement in an election from political ideologies clearly noting that celebrities are not economists, policy makers or global peacekeepers. Celebrities are also not average citizens. It is clear that the cheap political games politicians play to attract voters (think attack ads and false promises) will not go away and that certainly includes use of celebrity endorsement. The ball is in the court of the voter to be more exercised at deciphering tricks for political gain from politics. If celebrities are encouraging Americans to get informed and get involved in democracy, then I’m all for it. However, I am disillusioned by those who see politics as an extension of popular culture. Separating these two worlds protects the integrity of democracy. [Writing Sample from Advanced Writing in the Arts & Humanities Course at USC]
The Minnesota Vikings faced the Seattle Seahawks in the wildcard playoff round of the 2015 National Football League (NFL) season on January 10th. Headlines around the country heralded their matchup as the third coldest game in NFL history with a kick off temperature of -6 degrees Fahrenheit — an event not likely to occur again on Minnesota’s home turf. Over the past two seasons, the Minnesota Vikings have fought hard battles in the open-air TCF Bank Stadium on the campus of the University of Minnesota. This temporary home served the franchise while completion of a new $1.08 billion stadium in downtown Minneapolis was being constructed for it’s August 2016 Grand Opening. On January 10th, I was one of the 52,525 lucky (and frozen) fans to attend the final outdoor crusade, and I spent time with fellow purple fanatics questioning: Did the Vikings’ time at TCF Bank Stadium serve us well? Food & Beverage Highlighting iconic Midwest favorites, the food at TCF ranges from cheese curds (deep fried cheese balls) to walleye fingers (local fish, also deep fried). The selections are a considerable step-up from the previous Vikings stadium, the Metrodome, which served a limited variety and often stale options like hot dogs, popcorn, and over-priced Coors Light. In comparison, the TCF fare features a breadth of popular Minneapolis restaurant brands, classic football staples, and an emphasis on premium beers and spirits. The pinnacle of TCF Bank’s food and beverage service is the “Dairy Queen Club.” The DQ Club offers fans unlimited access to buffet lines of football’s favorite foods (wings, brats, chili, etc.) as well as all-you-can-drink local beers with the purchase of premium-priced, club seating. Possibly the most exciting part of the DQ endorsement however is the superabundance of ice cream available during games. Atmosphere There are three major components that define the atmosphere at TCF Bank: fans, tradition, and the frigid weather. Often termed “Minnesota nice,” Vikings fans are polite to opposing teams offering directions, being cordial in line, etc. Do not mistake these Midwest manners for apathy as Vikings fans are some of the most passionate in football. These skilled fans watch every down intently observing nuances of the game and letting their opinion be heard. TCF Bank Stadium was able to keep many of the traditions from the previous stadium alive by including a firework show for each scoring drive, honoring season ticket holder’s seats, and paying homage to the Norse culture with features such as the Gjallarhorn (large Scandinavian horn). However, the most dramatic influence on the atmosphere is the weather. TCF Bank is an open-air stadium leaving players and fans subject to the elements for the first time since the Vikings’ original stadium in 1981. The outdoor environment breeds a “hardcore” persona in fans who sell out the stadium even at staggeringly cold temperatures. Conversely, the openness of the arena allows the thunderous cheering from fans to evaporate into the cold air quieting the fandom. In the former Metronome stadium, the pressurized roof captured and contained all sound making Minneapolis the loudest city in America for an NFL game. Conclusion For a temporary stadium, TCF Bank reminded Minnesota fans what it truly means to be from the Northland. The emphasis on playing tough through the elements and appreciating the local environment led the Vikings to accomplish their first playoff run in 7 years on the TCF field. 12/15/2015 4 Comments Let's Talk About Bravery
Sikh Prayer for Peace |
Blog MottoHappiness is like a butterfly; the more you chase it, the more it will elude you, Categories |