You are visiting Liisbeth’s archives! 

Peruse this site for a history of profiles and insightful analysis on feminist entrepreneurship. 

And, be sure to sign up for rabble.ca’s newsletter where Liisbeth shares the latest news in feminist spaces.

Categories
Activism & Action Our Voices

Ilene Sova: A Woman of Action

 

ilene-sova-bio-pic3-448x600

 

Ilene Sova is a Toronto artist, artrepreneur, Tedx Woman speaker and founder of The Feminist Art Conference (FAC). Sova started drawing at age three, and while pursuing her bachelor of fine arts at Ottawa University, developed a keen interest in women’s psychology and feminism. She later combined these three passions and made a commitment to use her painting skills to catalyse discussion of women’s social issues. Her “Missing Women Project” was showcased at the 2013 National Forum on Feminism in Ottawa.

LiisBeth will be moderating a panel on Gender, Entrepreneurship, and Innovation at the upcoming FAC at OCAD University on Saturday, Jan. 21 2017. Panelists include Jack Jackson (AllJackedUp), Renish Kamal (Fidget Toys), Emily Rose Antflick (Shecosystem), and more!

LiisBeth recently sat down with Sova to talk about art, politics and the FAC.

LiisBeth: Why did you found FAC?

Ilene Sova: I founded FAC out of a project that I was working on called the Missing Women Project. I had been painting Missing Women from Ontario for four years in an impassioned attempt to bring about a discussion around violence against women in our local communities. As I was going through each case and doing the research for the portraits it was very clear that each woman had suffered violence due to patriarchal systems of oppression. While I processed this, I had all that feminist rage building up like a pressure cooker. I realized that I really needed to talk about these issues with feminist artists who could give me feedback and context. I came to a realization that I really wanted a supportive community to connect to.

My second realization was that that community didn’t really exist in any organized form in Toronto. So, when I launched the show, I decided that I would organize FAC to bring other feminist artists together to talk about the issues in our work and to meet one another under one roof, make connections, network and create relationships. I made a call for submissions and took the big leap and put it on social media. It had 45 shares by the end of the day. And by the end of that week, I had 20 volunteer committee members come forward! I was getting emails from all over the world (Kenya, Colombia, the U.S.) I was shocked by the reaction! The first FAC was quite magical, and afterwards, everyone was asking, “When is the next one?” I hadn’t thought about doing it again, but when myself and the committee saw the response, we decided in that moment to commit to yearly events and programming to continue with this wonderful energy!

LiisBeth: How many years has FAC been running? What has the response been like?

IS: FAC started in 2012 and our first conference had 60 participating artists and 150 attendees. It sold out in 48 hours. In 2014, we had 120 participating artists and 350 attendees and the conference was fully registered in 54 days. Last year we had 140 participants and 560 people registered! It’s growing beyond my imagination and we now have the addition of the two-week FAC Residency with Artscape Gibraltar Point every spring!

LiisBeth: We just have to ask: since Trump’s win, what are your thoughts about the role of feminism in the coming four years?

IS: My initial feeling about U.S. election news was a strong sense of ambivalence. Does it really matter who won? As a young anti-globalization activist, getting tear gassed pepper sprayed and beaten by police (for speaking out against economic trade agreements) I learned quite early that, to quote Bell Hooks, the “white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist system” will do what it will do. I also experienced how systems issues impact our everyday lives. In my view, the system today is on a fast track to eliminate the middle class, divide people, deregulate, reduce government, erase the social safety net and ultimately privatize services to make immense profits for billionaires. To do that successfully, it MUST create fear, marginalize, oppress, mass imprison, and destroy Indigenous rights. Donald Trump is simply part of a mechanism. And so was Hillary Clinton for that matter—which is why she didn’t win.

As someone who disagrees with how the system works today, and as a feminist activist, I wake up each day asking myself what will I actually do to change it? My answer? I decided to make the kind of art that fuels social change, and focus on helping to build and support my community. I research issues I’m passionate about; and take considered actions to create positive change in people’s everyday lives. It’s the reason I work tirelessly on initiatives like the Feminist Art Conference, getting art education back into our schools with the Blank Canvases project, working hard to provide affordable art spaces at Walnut Studios. These are my points of resistance; this is how I fight back. All the wonderful feminist community organizers in Toronto know it’s time now more than ever to focus on the work in our local areas. As a feminist, if you are feeling demoralized and helpless, give some thought to how you can RESIST in your own, unique way. Help build an active, positive community in spite of the election of a regressive regime in the U.S.. Stand up. Fight back. 

LiisBeth: That sounds like a terrific New’s Year’s resolution item! Thank you, Ilene!

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Some Additional FAC Facts

  • In 2013, FAC received over 70 submissions from all over North America, including Colombia and Kenya.
  • FAC 2015  expanded to one week of activities including three satellite exhibitions (one at The University of Toronto, one at York University and one at Artscape Youngplace). Participants came from as far away as Norway, South Korea, Australia, Hong Kong, Turkey and the U.S.

What to Expect at FAC 2017(running Jan. 10-21)

Another incredible lineup of speakers, artists and panels, including:

  • Liisbeth – Gender, Entrepreneurship, and Innovation (Jan 21)
  • Queering Feminist Art Class Panel Presented by Feminist Art Gallery / York University
  • Centre for Pluralism in the Arts Ontario – Women of Colour and Equity: Double Trouble
  • Black Futures Now – Organise This!: The Ethics, Politics, and Joys of Organising a Black Conference
  • Closing Keynote Presented by Native Women in the Arts: Sadie Buck Interviewed by Erika Iserhoff
  • Maker’s market!

For more information and the detailed schedule, go to https://factoronto.org/fac2017/.

To register, go to https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/feminist-art-conference-2017-embodied-resistance-tickets-29284113572.

Categories
Activism & Action Our Voices Systems

The Seven Sins of Gender Washing

As someone who wholly embraced and participated the environmental and sustainability movement in the early 2000s (to the point of founding the World’s only Platinum LEED-certified dairy), the opportunity to hear Naomi Klein speak on the state of the environment and environmental debate in Canada on Oct. 17 at the University of Toronto was something I just couldn’t miss.

In her talk, Klein cited many troubling facts, but the most burdensome of these was that after 50 years of environmental activism and effort, as a society, we still struggle to make meaningful progress.

Even with scientific evidence and now actual lived experience of the impact of growing levels of green house gases on the planet, and even after the signing of the 2016 Paris Agreement, environmental activists like Klein remain skeptical. While 55 countries representing 38 per cent of the world’s emissions agreed to implement plans that will “limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change,” Klein argues that the targets are already at risk. Several countries continue to approve large scale industrial projects that will make this achievement mathematically impossible, she notes. Canada for example, played an important role in convincing leaders of the need for even tougher measures, yet recently approved an emissions increase of 43 per cent for the Alberta Tar Sands’ new fossil-fuel-based pipelines. In practice, this will increase Canada’s emissions well beyond the target set in Paris.

Furthermore, environmental watchdog organizations, like UL Ventures (formerly TerraChoice), an independent global science safety company, continue to call out case after case of greenwashing. The term “greenwashing” was coined by environmentalist Jay Westerveld in 1986 to describe instances in which a company, government or any other group promotes green-based initiatives or images but continues to operate in ways that damage the environment. In fact, according to UL, 95 per cent of green products assessed today are guilty of greenwashing.

While we are patting ourselves on the backs for our day to day efforts, Klein suggests, we as a society are not doing nearly enough. Yes, we can change lightbulbs, buy green products, build LEED-certified buildings, and ride our bikes to work in the snow. But it turns out that in the face of continuued approval of large scale, fossil fuel based industrial projects that serve capitalist, corporate and national interests, these individual efforts represent but a few colourful grains of sand on a 150-mile beach.

The environmental movement has learned it is up against something much bigger than political will. It’s up against the reluctance of us all, and especially of those in power, to give up our 21st century way of life.

Common Ground: From Greenwashing to Gender-Washing

While listening to Klein, it occurred to me that the gender equality movement (known more commonly as feminism) is a lot like the environmental movement.

The literature in both fields indicates similar causal roots (unequal power dynamics, capitalism run amok, neoliberalism), and both are deemed exploitative in nature. They are both wicked problems that require intersectoral solutions. Each domain is full of third-party certification opportunities to help consumers separate the curds from the whey (LEEDS, Green Globes, ISO 14001, WEConnect, and Buyup Index).

Taking this idea further, many similarities can also be seen in the ways that corporations and even governments pay lip service to these two philosophies to turn a profit, or a vote.

In 2009, TerraChoice developed its list of the “Seven Sins of Greenwashing”, which became a widely-used taxonomy to categorize common types of greenwashing activities. The seven sins are: Hidden Trade-off, No Proof, Vagueness, Worshiping False Labels, Irrelevance, Lesser of Two Evils and Fibbing. Categorizing practices like this helped consumers to recognize and understand different types of greenwashing activities so they could make more informed choices.

The seven sins list was indeed useful during my days as a sustainable enterprise entrepreneur. And so, I thought it might be similarly helpful to develop a “Seven Sins of Gender-Washing” list to help us all better identify gender-washing practices. The term “gender-washing” describes organizations that try to sell themselves as progressive on the gender equity front, when in reality, they are not.

Here goes.

  1. The Sin of Re-Skinning – A company that attempts to “look” like its work environment is currently gender progressive by ensuring its company website, annual report, and advertising copy has lots of women in the photos. It uses positive gender speak in its corporate communications, and content marketing output, yet when you check out the gender composition at the top it is 80 per cent, or worse, 100 per cent men.
  2. The Sin of Worshipping False Progress – Where corporations create special “We Love Women Who Work Here” days; buy tickets to women empowerment lunches for female staff; appropriate initiatives like the UN’s “HeforShe” campaign for commercial gain; or give to Oxfam’s “I Am A Feminist” campaign as part of a marketing campaign, yet internal organizational policies and day-to-day gender-biased cultural practices remain fundamentally unchanged.
  3. The Sin of Distraction – A claim suggesting the company is pro-gender equity, but upon digging deeper, you find the claim is based on a narrowly defined initiative without concern for the larger, more important issues. For example, in 2011, Walmart trumpeted its new Global Women’s Economic Empowerment Initiative, which involved a commitment to source $20B from women-owned businesses. Sounds good, however, this amounts to just 5 per cent of its overall expenditures. And, Walmart was already buying from some women-owned firms. The initiative came on the heels of a class action suit launched against Walmart by its 1.5 million female associates for its allegedly discriminatory practices.
  4. The Sin of Corporate Inconsistency – Where distant head offices write, implement and impose gender equity and inclusion policies, and promote this as progress, but their branch plant or satellite operations in other jurisdictions don’t follow suit and are not help accountable for doing so.
  5. The Sin of Positioning Basic Compliance as Leadership – Companies that tout government-mandated policies—like pay equity or parental leave—as gender-progressive initiatives; or Ontario organizations that send out press releases announcing they “have done away with dress codes” (meanwhile dress codes have already been deemed unacceptable by the Ontario Human Rights Commission in 2016).
  6. The Sin of Irrelevance – A case where a company promotes the fact that 65 per cent of its employees are women, however they are all on the factory floor, are mostly hired as part-time workers with no benefits, and have no representation in senior management let alone on the board.
  7. The Sin of Only Counting Heads – A case where a company trumpets the addition of two new female board members or the promotion of a female manager to VP to change the ratio, not the culture. Sometimes, “non-trouble makers” or like-minded women who won’t challenge the status quo are chosen by design. This does nothing to change the culture or support inclusion. Appointees we hope to see serve as changemakers become mere headstones at the board table, and their ability to create change for all genders in the company is amputated-usually at the voice.

When it comes to the seven sin taxonomy, many may argue that perhaps these initiatives are not really sinful at all, but demonstrations of positive intent. The phrase, “Let’s not make the perfect be the enemy of the good,” comes to mind. As a colleague of mine said, “At least they changed the pictures on the website—it’s a start isn’t it?”

Once again, we can learn from our environmental movement counterparts. Yes, some organizations, keen to be perceived as market leaders in the gender equity space, might put the cart before the horse—a “fake it till you make it” approach—advertising where they want to be, and not where they are today. Sorry, but that still makes it gender-washing-until their policies and results catch up with their claims.

Do Organizations That Gender Wash Eventually Improve Authentically?

Furthermore, evidence from the green space shows that few companies ever actually move (willingly) beyond their greenwash-oriented status. Why? Turns out “the perfect” is not the enemy, it’s the business case decision-making framework.

To help organizations understand what being stuck in the short-term business case loop looks like, the sustainability field developed something called “The Maturity Curve”. Different consulting firms have customized different versions, but the core idea is the same. Becoming a truly environmentally positive enterprise is a journey. Points along the curve articulate the pros and cons from one state to another. It can help decision makers see that some returns take a long time to be realized.

If we apply the maturity curve concept to the gender equity space, it would look something like this:

slide1

 

As the chart illustrates, the reason companies in the environmental space actually never move past the compliance or market opportunity levels is because short-term returns are possible at those levels. Consumers eager to vote green with their dollars buy the products based on the ads, the green coloured package and superficial claims. Both believe they have done their bit.

Organizations that do want to make a substantive difference need to move up the curve. However, as you move up the curve, so do costs, and returns take more time to realize. Maturing takes investment. As we know, not all quarterly-earnings-oriented organizations can stomach a long return horizon. As a result, only a small percentage of organizations make the leap to the next stage of commitment.

This also speaks to the fact that that there is a limit to what we can truly expect from large corporations and institutions when it comes to changing the world. Few will ever, if at all, reach the fourth stage, unless these goals were part of the founding vision in the first place.

From Gender Washing to Gender Equity, to Action

So what does our understanding of green washing and role of companies in helping to drive environmental change tell us about the pace and nature of change we can expect in the gender equity space?

For starters, we can remind ourselves that real, deep social change happens at a glacial pace and is inherently complex. It involves changing institutions, culture, underlying, interlocking systems like capitalism and culture, versus just the products we buy or companies we work for.

We can also learn that individual efforts, such as “buying your way” out of a significant and fundamental social problem, make us feel good, but don’t do nearly enough. We must move from being consumers to becoming citizens again. As citizens, we can and should re-engage at political levels, read, think critically, stand up (on the street if need be, not just while sitting on your couch using Twitter), speak our truths, get uncomfortable, and take the time out of our days to contribute meaningfully to an intentional larger movement.

As Klein said two weeks ago, to really make a difference on these kinds of problems, we need an  intersectional collective, activist effort.

In her view, just as the colonialists saw their colonies and their natural resources as their own larder for growing their personal stature and fortunes at home, society has for too long viewed women as an inexpensive resource to exploit. Women have been used as “spare parts to fill in, versus lead[ers in] our economy.”

In short, we need to end our dependence on the extractive economy to save the planet, and similarly end our exploitation of women to advance society. And we need active, engaged and informed citizens, not consumers, to get there.

Now that would truly change everything.

 

Related Readings and Articles:

Entrepreneurs by Choice; Activists by Necessity” by Cynthia MacDonald

 

 

 

Categories
Activism & Action

Feminist Entrepreneurship—Changing the Face of Capitalism, One Enterprise at a Time

Vancouver-based Lunapads recently became a 2016 Canada Post E-Commerce Innovation Award-winner in the category of Community Impact. Lunapads opened for business in 1993. The company survived the rollercoaster startup phase and today it is a successful, seven-figure feminist enterprise with thousands of customers worldwide. It also boasts two innovative social impact programs, One4her, which improves access to education for Ugandan girls, and G Day For Girls, a global social movement involving “rite of passage” events that celebrate and empower girls aged 10 to 12 who are transitioning to adolescence. Lunapads is a She-EO venture, and  is on BCorp’s Best for the World list which highlights the top 10% most highly ranked B Corps globally.

LiisBeth had the opportunity to meet with the company’s Co-founder, Creative Director, and feminist entrepreneur, Madeleine Shaw on Sept. 23.

LiisBeth: Tell us about Lunapads.

Shaw: Okay, Lunapads is a for-profit, Vancouver-based social impact business. We’re a founding Canadian B Corp. We specialize in natural menstrual products and also products that meet bladder leakage needs. We are all about helping individuals have healthier, more positive experiences and outlooks about things their bodies do, getting rid of the shame some people feel when it comes to topics like menstruation, postpartum needs and leakiness.

LiisBeth: We want to learn more about you as a feminist entrepreneur, which you so totally are! First, what does feminism mean to you?

Shaw: Feminism, to me, is just about a movement that strives to achieve social equality. For me, I came to feminism at around age 17 or 18 as a way to try and make sense of gender oppression I had experienced personally. Learning about feminism opened my eyes to the fact that inequality is something many people experience and that gender equality does not exist in our culture. Girls, women, trans, non-binary people are particularly oppressed under a patriarchal power dynamic. To me, feminism just addresses all of them. It’s a lens through which one sees the world. It helps you see and understand inequality, the power dynamics behind it, and encourages active participation in changing that.

LiisBeth: How did your feminist outlook affect your career decisions?

Shaw: It actually helped me to opt out of the mainstream business working world. Just to back it up, while at university I started taking women’s studies courses. The reason I became interested in women’s studies is because of what I experienced during frosh week at Queen’s University in the mid-80s. I was pushed down onto a muddy field along with all the other first-year girls and the football team did push-ups on top of us. It was like this fake rape simulation going on. I was 17, I was thousands of kilometres away from home. I was shocked and appalled.

Then, the following week, I went into my first English 100 survey class. I wanted to be an English major because I loved reading. But when I looked at the syllabus, I found there was not one single woman writer on the entire syllabus for the entire year. Not one word written by a woman. Not one in the entire history of English literature. My mom has a Master’s degree in English and has kind of schooled me that this was not perhaps an accurate reflection of who is out there. I just thought, “Oh my God, here’s one of, what is supposed to be, the better higher institutions of learning in Canada, and this is their version of reality? I can’t take it!” I went down the hall to women’s studies and more-or-less never looked back.

Later, I got involved as a student leader doing mostly anti-date rape, anti-sexual violence-type campaigns like Take Back the Night and No Means No, and organizing screenings for documentaries like Killing Us Softly. I wanted to create change.

With respect to business, initially, as a university student, I hated the idea of business. I thought that was the last thing I would ever do. I thought it was an inherently exploitative activity that was sort of hand in hand with patriarchy. Capitalism was how patriarchy funded itself basically, right? That was my belief system in the early days. As a person of privilege, I didn’t understand where money actually came from, that people needed jobs and the economy supported families. Later, I started to consider that maybe capitalism wasn’t an inherently broken system but instead an inherently neutral system that had been kind of politically hijacked by a certain kind of person influenced by patriarchal values. Capitalism as a system wasn’t the problem. The values of those in power who had the opportunity to shape and leverage it is the problem.

So, I got excited about the idea of entrepreneurship. I thought, if I can find and create my own business and make it on my own terms with my own values then number one: I don’t have to go up to the 26th floor of some corporation who makes things or extracts things that I don’t believe in and whose practices don’t align with my values.

As a confident feminist, I also figured l probably wouldn’t survive for even a matter of months within that kind of a power system. I’m just a very independent, creative spirit. Entrepreneurship for me was an expression of leadership and creativity that my kind of rebellion. Fuck that! I don’t need to be that [corporate] kind of person. I don’t need to have the big title and the big… whatever. I get to have what I want on my own terms. So when I was 25, I started my first business. I’m 48 now. The idea that I could start my own business was a revelation to me. I was like, “Whoa! This is so exciting!”

LiisBeth: What was your first business?

Shaw: My first company was called Everywhere Designs. As a child, I always loved sewing and textiles. I guess I at first tried to be a feminist fashion designer by making clothes that were comfortable and that I felt celebrated women and that were sustainable, local and just alternatives to mass-marketed, super-sexy kind of things. I love colour, and I wanted to play with making my customers feel more alive and a little more vibrant. Just a way of expressing yourself in an interesting and creative way. So I purchased the small garment manufacturing business that had been making Lunapads, opened a little boutique and did a lot of customer work. Tons! I’ve made so many wedding dresses. Oh my goodness!

Lunapads grew out of that. I was on my own for about seven years when I met my business partner Suzanne [Siemens] in 1999 at a community leadership course. When we first met, I thought she represented the path of the capitalist dark side that I feared. She was corporate. An accountant. But that path almost killed her. She was looking to apply her talents to something that mattered to her. We have now been partners for 16 years.
LiisBeth: As a women’s studies graduate, where did you go to learn about building a company?

Shaw: The venture program at BCIT, though it’s called something else now… Now there’s entrepreneurial education programs everywhere. Back in the day, not so much. It was one of the few. I just loved it. They were great. I think there were maybe 12 or 15 people in my whole class.

LiisBeth: Were there women in it?

Shaw: There were one or two others.

LiisBeth: How has feminism influenced the way you operate your company?

Shaw: For starters, when we hire someone, we always look for a strong fit with our values before anything else. Feminism is one of our corporate values, so if somebody does not identify that way, then they’re going to have trouble fitting in.

LiisBeth: What’s the gender balance of your staff?

Shaw: If you go by the numbers, it would be 90 percent who are women-identified and 10 per cent genderqueer-identified.

LiisBeth: Have you ever had men apply for jobs in the past?

Shaw: Never. We hire them as contractors. We absolutely have amazing business relationships with them. And our accountants are men and our tech guys are men. We have never had any men apply, so it would be hard to hire them. Let’s start there.

But we’re certainly open to it. It has just happened that way, and I think it’s partly driven by the type of products we make, which is not to say that all women menstruate or all demonstrators are necessarily women. We hire feminists.

LiisBeth: What kinds of policies would we see in a feminist company’s employee handbook?

Shaw: We have explicitly written policies around trans inclusion. We offer both maternity and paternity leave. We have a glossary of different terms so people understand what a gender as a spectrum is or what this gender means or what genderqueer means.

We expect and train people to use gender-inclusive language when dealing with customers. For example, if you’re in our social media marketing group, you don’t say, “Hey ladies! Hey girls!” If you are addressing a group of people who do identify that way exclusively, then that’s fine, but if you’re trying to address the wider community of Lunapads, then we’re very particular about using gender-inclusive language.

LiisBeth: Have you gone as far as changing your pronoun language in your marketing material?

Shaw: Yes. When we are speaking generally of our customers, we don’t use the language of “girls” and “women”; we use the words “community” or “individuals” or “people who menstruate.” We’re also working on our imagery. We just did a photo shoot with some trans people so we can be representative visually, and not just verbally, in the copy.

LiisBeth: Let me ask about another area of decision making in procurement. When you’re sourcing suppliers, do you look for women-owned enterprises to deal with?

Shaw: It’s challenging, especially when you’re dealing with textiles, but it’s true in many things. I would say that we look for sustainability first when it comes to supply chain, because we’re trying to work with environmentally sustainable fabrics. Because we’re B Corp, we look for B Corps, so we know their values match with ours. It may not be a specifically woman-owned or feminist organization, but it’s one that has been evaluated for its overall social and environmental impact.

LiisBeth: What about decision making and operating? How flat? How hierarchical? How has, let’s say, feminism, influenced your management practices?

Shaw: It’s interesting because I remember as a university student doing feminist organizing, I actually experienced a lot of frustration in that environment, where it almost felt too collective and too inclusive sometimes, to the point where things just didn’t get done. I would say that we’ve been through some interesting iterations. They say that a company’s culture is a direct reflection of the issues leaders themselves are working through, which is interesting.

A few years ago, we made the conscious decision for my partner Suzanne to be the point of the arrow, which implies this hierarchy.

Can we still be a feminist company and have somebody who is the boss? My answer to that is: I think yes. We’re still living in patriarchal times. There’s no doubt about it. We’re all, to some extent, still carrying around that baggage, but I also believe in efficiency, and I believe that not every decision needs to be collective. It just doesn’t. If you’re going to scale your business it can’t be.

LiisBeth: Feminism is everywhere today. And historically, feminists have an uneasy relationship with capitalism. Where do you see this all going?

Shaw: Let’s start with feminism. I feel more and more like we’re in the age of feminism, finally! People are recognizing the untapped resource of women, in particular from an economic perspective as taxpayers, as workers, and also at the same time we’ve got the climate collapsing due to values-free business practices that are exploitative.

When it comes to feminism and capitalism, I personally believe that the success of the feminist business revolution will be to change capitalism and, I hope, also work to address climate change because it’s our biggest opportunity.

We know the system of patriarchy needs to change, but within that we’ve got the capitalist system. It’s so essential and yet it’s been seized by a few and used in a twisted way. That’s why I believe things like feminist entrepreneurship can make a difference, where we can really take a kick at creating alternatives within the capitalist system.

The act of doing business can be really positive if you do it right. I think that the combination of feminism and capitalism, powered by creativity, can change the world.

Related Articles

Silicon Valley’s Quest to Make Periods Cool: Feminine hygiene is getting a millennial-savvy update–could it leave some women behind?

(Publisher’s Note: Lunapads are available at retail stores across Canada including Whole Foods and London Drugs. In the US, Lunapads Performa Pads have just launched at 200 select Target stores, as well as online at Target.com. Our complete collection is available at www.lunapads.com; Liisbeth community members are invited to use promo code lunalove to receive 15% off orders over $35 untilDecember 31, 2016.)

Related Reading

Categories
Activism & Action Our Voices

When Those Who Lead Fall Behind

13744109_943636722429384_77441843_n

 

My mother was brilliant, and a chain smoker, a habit developed at a time when smoking anywhere, including the office, restaurants, and with kids in cars, was acceptable. But with societal costs exposed, views began to evolve. The acceptable became unacceptable. Whole industries had to transform.

At first, my mother refused to accept the change. She argued that “it was her life, a free country, and no “big deal”. She would light up mid-flight in the airplane’s restroom, thinking no one would truly care. Finally, one time, she was almost arrested. Lesson finally, painfully learned.

The Next Change

Similarly, today we are increasingly aware of the negative impact and rising cost of inequality and exclusion in our society.

Gender balance, diversity, and inclusive cultural practices are increasingly being recognized as the key to the development of a thriving innovation-based economy, and a better society for all. And while studies, stats and street-level accounts of lived experience tell us we still have a long way to go, we are seeing more examples of people in leadership roles working to challenge cultural norms and structures that fuel inequality.

In this year alone, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau created a 50/50 male-female cabinet, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne set 40 per cent gender diversity targets, and (whoa!) the Rotman School of Management launched a new Institute for Gender & The Economy and invited well-known feminist Andi Zeisler to speak to business students. Big tech conferences banning “booth babes” on the basis that it is indefensible in this day and age—and a relic of old enterprise.

We might even see a woman become President of the United States in November.

Change is happening.

Enter, Toronto’s Tech Elite Hold Outs

Sadly, the “Bro-Chairs” of the Spotlight Awards 2016, led by event host and newly appointed NEXT Canada CEO Razor Suleman, seem to be, like Donald Trump, living in their own reality. Change? What change?

Here is the latest of several examples.

While the concept of launching a Canada tech entrepreneur awards show is commendable, Suleman and his 11 co-chair male disciples, plus one lone woman (Angela Strange) exhibited astonishingly outdated judgment in its execution.

For starters, they chose to partner up with the startup Modelmob  to supply (free) booth babes to adorn and serve smiles at this awards event. Even Toronto Mayor John Tory and Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Navdeep Singh Bains attended the event, seemingly without concern about the hiring of young arm candy as a ticket-selling draw.

Modelmob is a Tinder-style “hire me now” mobile app that makes it easy for those inclined to sign up as “models” and enables buyers to pick individual “models” to adorn their event, based on their pictures. They may then put them in a shopping cart, and check them out—just like you might buy books on Amazon. Suleman himself is reported to be a proud mentor to the male/female co-founding team. Their advertising says they aim to become the “Airbnb” for models, matching buyers with sellers. Some might say the app empowers women, but based on the enterprise’s ads and tweets, empowerment is clearly not what they are selling.

To give you a sense of their approach, note the post-event promo from Modelmob featured below:

Oddly, no one even at or even after the event seemed to publically comment on how inappropriate this was. Organizers tweeted “@ModelmobApp thank you for sponsoring the #spotlightawards2016 tonight and adding beauty and flare to the event”.

As the evening wore on, questionable judgment by the committee continued as Suleman led the way to the event’s after party at the exclusive Candyland Burlesque club, which features fancy 1 oz cocktails at $20 a piece, plus $8,000 bottles of champagne and $5,000 third act table service, alongside barely-dressed women performing circus-esque acts.

Is Candyland like Moulin Rouge?

One reviewer on Yelp, Tracey D , who went to the venue in August 2016, described her experience in detail:

“We did not see any of the acts like the photographs on this page… It was not what I expected. I was thinking it’d be a classy burlesque show. It was not. Penises are spray painted on the walls, along with dirty words. We saw a waitress take off her top and flash the bartender. We only saw one performance while we were there… It was two girls rolling around and crawling in army boots. Not my idea of burlesque. It was extremely dark and seemed seedy. We ended up leaving early.”

From Candyland by Night to…. Leadership of Young Entrepreneurs By Day?

One has to ask what this kind of leadership says to women tech entrepreneurs, NEXT Canada youth applicants, and more importantly, NEXT_Canada corporate sponsors advocating for gender-parity and the universities that host NEXT_Canada recruitment meet-ups? And what does it say about the other 11 co-chairs,including NEXT_Canada’s President, Peter Carrescia, the man in day-to-day charge of the program which has already been criticized for being significantly dude-laden throughout its ranks, and whose organization recently came under additional fire for “erasing” co-founder Claudia Hepburn?  

We should also be curious about the women “role models” who were part of the event, like Dragon’s Den cast member Michele Romanow, or Silicon Valley VC connector Angela Strange. Where were their voices on these decisions then? Where are they now?

And finally, we have to ask if this is the kind of leadership anyone really needs in a period when the number of women in tech is in actual declinewomen’s rights are rolling backward in many parts of the world, and presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s competency is hotly debated on gender grounds.

But then again, some people really do live in their own reality.

Leadership by Example? These Leaders Don’t Represent My Canada

At a time when concerns mount over barriers faced by women entrepreneurs—particularly women tech entrepreneurs—the choices made by the otherwise successful, smart Spotlight Awards committee are baffling. But then again, just because one knows how to make money, doesn’t mean one is fit to lead in changing times. This is not Silicon Valley or Trump-land. It is Canada.

It is also a stark reminder that having a few women in the mix doesn’t mean that the conversation will necessarily change. Sure, sometimes the outnumbered female voice is self-censored, fearing accusations of being “no fun” or “prudish”. But scarier still, is the woman in the room who says nothing because she is just as oblivious to or ignorant about the broader economic and social impact of gender-based oppression as her male counterparts are.

There is still so, so much work to be done.

–first published in LiisBeth’s newsletter, Sept 27th, 2015

 

(Publishers Update: In response to increasing calls for change from LiisBeth, SheEO, and many other organizations and individuals, the Board of Directors at Next_Canada took action.  Read about it here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hard-thing-things-petra-kassun-mutch?trk=prof-post)

 

Related articles: 

http://bit.ly/1WubnO8 

http://betakit.com/timetable/event/spotlight-awards/

https://www.liisbeth.com/2016/07/27/problem-bro-preneurship-display-montreals-startupfest/

https://medium.com/@melindakjacobs/are-women-just-decorative-items-855c42a375be#.jv9q5uniw

https://www.bdc.ca/en/about/mediaroom/news_releases/pages/i_love_rewards_company_gets_to_the_point.aspx

Categories
Activism & Action Our Voices

Who Erased Claudia Hepburn?

Whether it’s the elimination of First Nations from our national history, the denial of women in our founding history or the exclusion of one woman in the recent history of The Next 36, it all amounts to the same thing—a falsehood. Achievements denied, contributions ignored, people rendered invisible.“____

I first met the tall, slender and ginger-haired fire-starter Claudia Hepburn in 2013. She had just finished speaking about transformational education and innovation at the Art Gallery of Ontario, and was working the room. Hepburn, co-founder and director of Canada’s high-profile business leadership and entrepreneurship program The Next 36, was doing what she loved to do—educate, support and advance our youth.

Hepburn energetically led The Next 36’s growth and development for over five years. Yet last week, the press release announcing the program’s new name and incoming CEO, took the time to pay respects to the work of its visionary founders—naming all except Claudia Hepburn.

Thinking I missed something, I read it again. But nope, still no single mention of Claudia Hepburn as co-founder or the fact that she led its development to this point for five years.

Huh?

An oversight? Maybe. But perhaps it is not one that should come as a surprise. At the newly rebranded The Next 36 (now Next Canada), men still make up six out of seven of its founders, 13 of its 14 board members, 13 of its 14 faculty members, and 19 of its 22 mentors. In the 2015 annual report, you will find only one of its 15 guest speakers were women. In an environment where you hardly ever see women, I suppose it is easy to forget they exist at all.

Sadly, what happened to Hepburn in this instance is not unusual. Women’s contributions are all too often “accidently” erased from history.

What is Erasure?

New York Times article printed earlier this year explains that erasure is “the practice of collective indifference that renders certain people and groups invisible.”

Identity erasure is practiced whenever people are eliminated from history. Today, we increasingly recognize how much of the history we’ve been taught is partial because it fails to capture the contributions and participation of those who are not the storytellers. Whether it’s the elimination of First Nations from our national history, the denial of women in our founding history or the exclusion of one woman in the recent history of The Next 36, it all amounts to the same thing—a falsehood. Achievements denied, contributions ignored, people rendered invisible.

The concept of erasure is not new to most women. Just look at your kid’s textbook. Women’s contributions—either on their own or in partnership with men—in science, art, law, medicine, technology and a host of other realms are simply left out.

Unfortunately, erasure is still common practice today. It works at the same quick speed as the Internet. Here today. Gone tomorrow. For example, you have probably never heard of Whitney Wolfe, even though she was one of Tinder’s co-founders. In 2014, she took Tinder to court for equity and lost compensation as well as to put her name back in the books. Today, you will find no mention of her in Tinder’s history. There are many other similar stories about women co-founders who spoke their truth, and were subsequently erased from the picture. Apparently, if you make too much noise, erasure is additionally justified.

Back to The Next 36/Next Canada

If I were Claudia, I would rake these guys over the coals for leaving her out and force them to publish a correction. To make sure it doesn’t happen again. But then again, I’m not sure anyone would listen.

In July, LiisBeth highlighted gender imbalance at The Next 36. Following the article, I spoke with The Next 36 co-chairs John Kelleher (also a partner at McKinsey) and Tony Lacavera, plus Peter Carrescia, Managing Director, at their request. Carrescia explained, with feeling, how difficult it is for them to find qualified women who fit their bill. “It’s really a pipeline issue,” said Carrescia.

Just prior to our call, The Next 36 filled two board vacancies with men. But there would be other openings in the future. Hopeful, and trying to be helpful, we encouraged them to re-assess their criteria, try a little imagination, and referred them to several accomplished women who had the kind of networks that could help them with their pipeline issues.

In September, they brought on a male CEO, whom I hate to say, looks and talks a lot like them.

A former program participant (who preferred to stay anonymous for fear of repercussions) told us, “It’s really just about rich men over 40 gathering to create a world in their image by creating path replicative opportunities for youth, that just happen to align our financial interests with their success.”

From what I’ve learned so far, that about sums it up.

Sometimes it’s best if organizations just come clean, say what they really are, and don’t pretend otherwise. The Next 36 leadership could refrain from pretending it believes equality is good for business and important to educating young leaders, and the rest of us could focus on directing tomorrow’s talent to programs run by people that do.

Petra Kassun Mutch

(This article was originally published in the LiisBeth Magazine subscriber newsletter on September 12, 2016. Many readers expressed outrage and requested that we republish this piece more broadly–so we did!

Related Reads

Categories
Our Voices Systems

When Lightning Strikes: Living With Bankruptcy

One Sunday afternoon in January, a 39-year-old statuesque blue-eyed blond wearing sneakers and a “No Fear” T-shirt stood on the sidewalk outside her retail store and watched her life’s work get carted away. For the sake of her privacy, let’s call her Tara and her store The Happy Gourmet. On a normal day, The Happy Gourmet would’ve been packed with local-food advocates opening their wallets to buy produce, meats, and cheese produced by local farmers and food artisans. Instead, it was filled with tool-bearing bargain hunters gruffly dismantling anything worth taking, including wall-mounted vintage shelves and antique tin-roof tiles. They carted away café tables, blackboards, display cases, electronic scales and freezers. People out for a Sunday stroll along Main Street saw the action and joined the fray, stuffing shopping bags with hard-to-source gourmet goods, decorations, napkins and even the small encaustic paintings of garlic and peppers, which were gifted to Tara by a local artist as an opening present three years earlier. Everything was being sold off at “best offer” prices. Cash only.

With the poise of a front-of-house restaurant manager, Tara oversaw the very public dismantling of her cherished business.

“How much for this shrink-wrap machine?” John, a regular customer, asked.

“Whatever you want to give me for it, John!” she replied, offering a wide smile, if a little forced.

He gave her $20. They hugged. She said, “See you soon,” and watched him drive away. Then, for the first time that day, she cracked. In tears, she walked down the street for a block or two to collect herself, then returned to the scene where friends and familiar customers continued to cart away her enterprise.

Everything she had built over the past 20 years—her dream business, reputation, professional credentials, celebrated status in the community for providing five full-time positions and contributions to the local economy through her procurement policy of buying local—was gone in less than three hours.

Tara’s business was wiped out by the 2008 global financial meltdown, along with over 3,000 other Canadian enterprises (3.1 per cent of all enterprises in Canada). Incorporating does not protect small business owners. The fact is, most small businesses are primarily financed by a combination of personal savings, credit card debt, plus business lines of credit backed by founder personal guarantees and assets like home equity or retirement savings, which means business debt is also personal debt. Incorporation status does not shield you from having to make loan or creditor payments in these cases. Furthermore, in those tight credit times, banks were pulling loans, not approving them, and Tara did not have the personal financial resources to obtain more credit to carry her business through the downturn. She says emphatically, “I didn’t want to go bankrupt.” However, her advisors looked at the books and short-term outlook and agreed it was the best course of action. Tara was caught, like so many others that year, with a dollar-store umbrella in a Wall Street storm.

“Going under happened so fast,” says Tara. “When it falls apart, it really falls apart.”

The Bankruptcy Experience

Filing for personal bankruptcy took her a day. And typically, “clearing the deck” takes approximately nine months. However, getting out from under the related business bankruptcy process under Canadian law, in her case, which involved liquidating company assets, and paying back business creditors with an agreed upon amount with post entrepreneur job earnings, will take up to five years. Incredibly, it then takes an additional six years to restore her credit history. For Tara, that means it will take her 13 years to get a fresh start.

Conor O’Neill, an insolvency lawyer at Fasken Martineau, says under Canadian law it’s particularly difficult to rebuild your reputation and expunge the blight on your financial record after bankruptcy. “I know a very accomplished professional woman in her mid-40s who had just applied for a high-level corporate director’s position,” he says. “The company did a background check and learned that she had filed for personal bankruptcy 20 years ago. It was still on her record. These days, most corporate and even non-profit bylaws stipulate that directors cannot have ever declared personal bankruptcy. No one wants a director on their board who is perceived to have mismanaged money. She didn’t get the appointment.”

Andy Fisher, a partner in the insolvency and restructuring practice at Farber Financial Group in Toronto, says the way Canada deals with business-related bankruptcy is getting better. “Things have started to noticeably change since 2008,” says Fisher. First, the banks are less and less aggressive about pushing business owners into bankruptcy, since many had to provide personal guarantees to secure their start-up loan. Instead, they are encouraging founders to pursue long-term repayment plans known as a Division 1 proposals (if you owe more than $250,000) or Consumer proposals (if you owe less).

Chad Kopach, a litigation lawyer and partner at Blaney McMurtry LLP, agrees. “Canadian business owners are also getting more proactive in working with their lenders to work out a reasonable solution,” he says. “In a proposal scenario (similar to Chapter 11 and Chapter 13 in the U.S.), unsecured lenders will get some [money]. In a bankruptcy (Chapter 7 in the U.S.), they get none. It’s an easy choice if you are a numbers person.”

However, the proposal option only works if you have some money left to distribute on judgment day (the day the court decides how much you have to pay back, the conditions and when you may be discharged) or have prospects of getting a reliable job and income in short order. For many business owners, their business is their job. Many entrepreneurs, especially women, start businesses because they have experienced employment barriers or pay equity issues in the past, so finding a new, well-paying job that covers living expenses plus paying off business creditors at a set amount for the next five years is no easy feat.

Is there any upside? Fisher notes that for many, filing for bankruptcy is often the only and best way to get a new start for those deep in a financial hole that they might otherwise never be able to climb out of, and that in many cases the discharge process takes 12 to 18 months if there are no complications. He also says, “While it is not uncommon for people who have gone bankrupt to feel embarrassed, they shouldn’t. I’m certain that everyone who reads this article has a friend or family member who has either gone bankrupt or filed a proposal. We had a couple who went bankrupt. They went to a dinner party. Going to the dinner party, they thought they were the only people at the party that had gone bankrupt. At the end of the party, they found out that all four couples at the party had gone bankrupt or done a Consumer proposal.”

Consumer proposals have indeed been on the rise over the past five years and are increasingly seen as a better alternative to bankruptcy by both debtors and creditors.

However, Elizabeth Warren, author of the 2002 Harvard Law School study “What is a women’s issue? Bankruptcy, Commercial Law, an Other Gender-Neutral Topics”, casts dispersions on the bankruptcy industry’s effort to market bankruptcy as completely normal, as if “the courts are overflowing with people who deliberately shrug off their debts as easily as they shrug off an old overcoat.” In her view, it smacks of moral degeneracy.

Is Bankruptcy a Women’s Issue?

Studies show that four of the top causes of business bankruptcy in North America are undercapitalization, management inexperience, over-extension of credit and economic conditions or recessions. Furthermore, typically women-dominated industries, which women entrepreneurs also often gravitate to, including retail, accommodation and food industries, tend to top the list when it comes to high bankruptcy rates.

A continued look at gender and bankruptcy research suggests that bankruptcy, especially small business bankruptcy, is indeed a women’s issue. In North America, women are attempting entrepreneurship at unprecedented rates, despite the additional gender-specific challenges. Some women are opportunity-driven, others are driven by glass ceilings and sexism in corporate environments, financial necessity or because they see entrepreneurship as the best way to tackle the pesky and enduring gender pay gap. While the number of female founders grows at double-digit rates, evidence also shows that North American women entrepreneurs face reduced access to investment and commercial loan capital, resulting in a higher level of reliance on credit cards and personal savings to start their ventures. If five to 80 per cent of new ventures fail within the first five years, and if women entrepreneurs statistically take on more personal debt and financial risk to start their ventures, then it stands to reason that women entrepreneurs could be at higher risk for bankruptcies than their male counterparts.

Warren’s research paper, which focuses on personal bankruptcy, notes that “the number of women filing for bankruptcy is increasing at an alarming rate, and that the distribution of those in bankruptcy is shifting, from decidedly male in the 1980s to decided female in the 2000s”. Interestingly, this increase coincides with the dramatic increase in the number of female entrepreneurs over the same period.

When the Process Does More Harm Than the Credit Rating

The time it takes to be completely cleared of a bankruptcy, plus make repayments for several years is hard enough, but Tara says the process, what she has to endure while under bankruptcy and how she feels about having to do so is arguably even worse.

Once her business declared bankruptcy, Tara was required by law to hire and pay for a trustee. Trustee fees are governed by law, but generally involve a $750 one-time fee plus 20 per cent of any money collected. The trustee gets paid first, and whatever is left each month goes to the creditors. For the duration of her financial purgatory years, Tara’s trustee acted as a sort of financial parole officer. Tara is thankful that her trustee is respectful; still, she has to meet with him regularly to review her income and spending—in coffee-cups-per-day detail. If she earns more than $2,100 per month in gross income or approximately $25,300 annually (just above the regional poverty line of $19,930), which is the maximum allowed under bankruptcy law, she has to write him a cheque for the excess. She faces questions like, “Couldn’t your friend have paid for dinner?” and “Can’t you find a cheaper hairdresser or maybe use drugstore colour?” She even has to declare cash gifts from friends and family, and if it pushes her over her minimum allowance, it also gets appropriated. She had to forfeit her credit cards on day one and is barred from securing any type of credit until she’s discharged. If she is offered even a department store card and it is accepted, she could be jailed.

Five years into Tara’s bankruptcy term, her car broke down and was beyond repair. She was desperate for a loan and surprisingly, her trustee approved her loan application. However, the interest rate offered by the only willing lender was 29 per cent annually, a typical rate for “high credit risk” customers. She turned it down. She is now borrowing a car from a family member.

Overall, the experience has been, in Tara’s words, “humiliating and devastating psychologically.” She says, “For the first year I felt really raw. I developed a real fear of people. I didn’t want to go out, go anywhere, or talk to anyone. I felt shame. Panic. Utter fear.” She recalls how close friends were quick to knock her off their guest lists. Her European immigrant parents were ashamed. Her seven-year-old daughter endured teasing from classmates. Personal bankruptcies are easier to hide; but prominent business-related personal bankruptcies, not so much.

Researchers in the entrepreneurship space would not be surprised by Tara’s emotions. Canadians are smitten with the idea of entrepreneurship as a career choice, but are also known to have a strong cultural aversion to failure and those who are perceived to have failed. Not a good combination for a nation that seeks to be a global leader in the innovation and entrepreneurship space.

It’s been six years since the closing of her dream business. Tara has one year to go before her payback terms are fulfilled. Heroically, she rebuilt her professional life and now teaches full-time at a chef school at a local college. She was recently promoted to department coordinator. Her students love her grit and real-life experience. They learn more from her than just cooking. In turn, Tara believes sharing what she has been through, the good parts and the bad has made her both a better teacher and accelerated her own healing. She has also taken up jiu-jitsu, where falling down and getting up is part of the drill. However, she still avoids socialising outside of work and is deeply wary of ever starting a business again.

“The pull is still there and probably always will be,” she says. “I can’t walk by a storefront for lease without dreaming. Deep down, I guess I am still an entrepreneur. But there is no way I am going there again anytime soon.”

 


Suggested reading:

Slow Growth, Or How To Sleep At Night When You’re Building Your Business, by Valerie Hussey, LiisBeth

Should I put my small business into bankruptcy? by Andy Fisher of Farber Financial

What is a women’s issue? Bankruptcy, Commercial Law, an Other Gender-Neutral Topics by Elizabeth Warren, Harvard Women’s Law Journal, Vol. 25, Spring 2002

How Can I Get a Guaranteed Small Business Loan With Bad Credit? by Malik Sharrieff, studioD