Can Entrepreneurs Revive the Saree?

An Indian saree, six yards of utter simplicity and audacity, is the perfect garment. Folded, it looks severe and perplexing, like an extra-long bed sheet. Draped, it transforms itself and its wearer. No apparel so embodies the spirit of the region it represents. The saree suggests at once the minimalism of the ascetic and the sensuality of the tropics: lushness, sweat, sparkling white cotton, bare caramel-to-cocoa skin, loose folds of clothing that easily pull on and off.

No other garment is as antique and yet contemporary. The saree was worn by women of the Indian subcontinent thousands of years ago — and still is. No other civilization has spawned a garment that has survived so long, and yet even managed to thumb its nose at being embalmed in a museum.

The saree is worn at home and work by millions of Indian women from all walks of life. It is the perfect garment to be totally pregnant in or walk down a fashion ramp in; to transplant rice or to construct roads in; to take a presidential salute in; to get married in; to wash dishes in; to offer sports commentary in; to breastfeed a baby with total ease and modesty in; to wear to a board meeting in; to pray in or sleep in; to be covered from head to toe in; or to seduce a lover in.

No other garment is as versatile. In which other country could a nun like Mother Teresa and a Miss Universe winner wear exactly the same garment?

But the saree is becoming endangered. Pants or salwar kameez — a tunic with loose pants and a scarf — are becoming the daily clothing of choice for many urban Indian women. They are easier to wear and wash. They are seen as modern and more modest. They are more suited to the daily fight of throwing elbows in crowds and avoiding the lewd attentions of men. The saree is still a long way from being written off as a ceremonial and impractical garment like the kimono, but for increasing numbers of Indian women, sarees stay folded in wardrobes and are brought out for weddings and special occasions.

Can Entrepreneurs Revive the Saree?

Saree

 

The Netherlands Tackles Social Policies

Kaj Leers writes:  The Netherlands since World War II has been at the vanguard of social welfare reform in Europe. Social Democrats and Christian Democrats in tandem laid the foundations for a true welfare state in the late 1950s and the 1960s.

A pensions savings system, improved collective health care, basic government-financed unemployment insurance, welfare benefits, and state-financed education plans were introduced within a generation. Employers, workers, and the government all picked up part of the tab, and the discovery of huge gas fields in the north of the country removed all restraints.

From the 1970s onward, welfare schemes expanded. New benefits were designed, health care costs ballooned, and education expenditures increased. In the early 1980s, government expenditures had increased to such heights – just as the global economy pushed inflation to unsustainable levels – that the government pushed the major labor unions and trade unions to reach a national labor agreement. Unions would no longer demand outrageous raises; employers would invest in jobs.

In the mid-1980s, government expenditures accounted for more than 60 percent of Dutch gross domestic product. In those days, the Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, and Liberals were the biggest parties in parliament. They formed alternating government coalitions, with the Christian Democrats always being the centrists who pivoted to the Liberals or the Social Democrats depending on the outcome of the vote.

Since the late 1980s, much has changed – especially for the Social Democrats and Christian Democrats. Both parties, formerly responsible for the creation of the welfare state, set about tempering it, cutting back on expenses. Government-owned companies were privatized, markets were liberalized, and expenditures on government programs were cut.

But while parties dealt with the outsized welfare state, many of their voters didn’t follow. The year 2002 saw voters revolt. Out of nowhere one man, Pim Fortuyn, galvanized the discontent that part of the electorate had silently carried for years. Much to the surprise of many a complacent politician, it turned out that a sizeable non-voting portion of the population felt deeply disenfranchised and ignored by what Fortuyn dubbed “the establishment” or “the elite.”

Many of the discontended voters had grievances that had also been largely ignored. Whereas most of the political debate in the country had for decades centered on socioeconomic issues such as health care, education, social security, unemployment, and economic growth, a great number of these people were also worried about sociocultural issues.

The Netherlands saw the emergence of a PEGIDA movement avant la lettre – one made of people who didn’t demonstrate in the streets, but rather voiced their protest in the voting booth. Fortuyn played the identity politics fiddle so well that it was picked up by many other political parties, including the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats. Ever since the time of Fortuyn, who was assassinated just before the national elections of 2002, sociocultural issues such as crime, integration, and immigration have sat solidly at the forefront of Dutch politics.

Geert Wilders of the Freedom Party has pushed matters further than Fortuyn ever did.Wilders is currently in the crosshairs of the country’s Prosecution Office for alleged discrimination against Moroccans during an election rally. But the movement that supports him is unfazed; in polls, Wilders looks set to be the solid winner of the elections on March 18, handing him many new seats in the Senate.

Meanwhile, something else has changed. Among voters concerned with predominantly socioeconomic issues, even those on the right, are far less keen on cuts in health care, education, and even social security than they once were.

This has led the government coalition parties (left-wing Social Democrats and right-wing free-market Liberals) to turn the tables on the opposition.

In the Netherlands, political truisms have been turned on their heads. With even cost-cutting, small government-type voters rejecting austerity, it seems that ideas that were once vilified as leftist tax-and-spend politics have been internalized as schemes you can now take for granted.

Once again, Dutch voters in this respect may stand at the European vanguard.

Class DIvisions?

Not Enough Women Engineers?

Alexandra Meldrun writes:  In the wake of another International Women’s Day, at Engineers Australia we are still lamenting our inability to attract and retain women.  Why is this happening?

I’d argue it’s happening because Australia has an attitude problem and  the Australian workplace culture does not support women in engineering (and many other professions) to achieve their potential.

You could be forgiven for thinking that women engineers disappear from the workforce altogether once they turn 35. As women make up only 11% of the total engineering workforce, this is a loss the profession feels deeply.

Not only are we losing women as they start families, we are also failing to get enough girls to study engineering in the first place. A recent OECD report states just 3% of Australian girls are contemplating a career in engineering or computing, compared to 17 % of boys.

It’s not for a want of role models. One of the world’s first computer scientists was a female – Ada Lovelace. Contemporary Aussie inspirations include: space engineer Andrea Boyd, the only Australian in the world working in the ISS Flight Control team, and Yassmin Abdel-Magied, President of Youth Without Borders and an inspirational FIFO engineer working on oil and gas rigs. Women engineers play a fascinating role in engineering innovation in spite of well-known educational barriers and prejudice.

Yet it is still a slow business to sign up the female inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs of tomorrow.

The working environment for engineers continues to be a barrier to women joining and staying in the engineering workforce. Women engineers are earning less than their male counterparts (irrespective of work hours) and hold far fewer of the top management roles.

There is considerable evidence that when women engineers are responsible for the care of children, their employment participation rate falls dramatically. This is more prevalent in engineering than in other professions with comparable education requirements.

Sadly, in these respects, engineering is not very different to many other professions, roles and workplaces. Key decision makers do not understand the unconscious bias and barriers that may be put in place, which can stop women from achieving their potential.

Over the years Engineers Australia has worked tirelessly to deliver campaigns, strategies, school initiatives and events to support the ongoing transition of engineering into an inclusive profession.

Our National Women in Engineering Committee has spent countless volunteer hours entering engineering organisations and engaging with senior management, to introduce and discuss their Flexible Workplace Strategy which is aimed at slowly but surely increasing women’s participation in workplaces across Australia.

This Committee is but one small group with their work cut out for them; more businesses need to recognise the importance of flexibility in the workplace and its correlation to diversity and success.

These days workplace flexibility is a key issue for employees, irrespective of gender or indeed age. Encompassing a flexible and supportive workplace culture will go a long way in improving productivity levels and retaining women, by weighing business needs with employee circumstances.

We must encourage more women to pursue a diverse and rewarding career in engineering.on  The recent Intergenerational Report shows we are significantly under-utilising a key part of our highly skilled workforce and therefore losing productivity through lower participation of women; this is detrimental to Australia’s economy and productivity growth.

Changing attitudes requires not only a whole of government, whole of industry approach, but a whole of nation approach.

In my case, engineering has –and continues to – offer a diverse and rewarding career. Engineering has given me the opportunity to work in areas which are the essentials of life – food, energy, innovation and education. I hope many girls in the future shall realise that they too have these options, and Australia supports them in this pursuit.

Engineers in Australia, But Not Enough

US Falling Behind in Advanced Technologies?

Is the US falling behind in advanced technologies?  The United States’ GDP of $16.3 trillion in 2014 was the highest in the world, due in large part to the strength of U.S. industries. However, all industries are not equal in terms of their contribution to economic output. While the U.S. economy is among the world’s strongest, however, other countries continue to invest in education, technology, innovation, and other industries that invigorate economies, and the U.S. is falling behind. The percentage of U.S. workers employed in what the Brookings Institution calls “advanced industries” has fallen from 11.6% in 1980, to 8.7% in 2013. While this was a slight improvement from 8.4% in 2010, the need for a resurgence in the nation’s most important industries is more pressing than ever.

US Education

Gaming Industry for Men Only?

Natalie Zina Walshots writes:  Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist critic best known for her YouTube series “Tropes vs. Women in Video Games,” cancelled an appearance at Utah State University after she received an anonymous threat of a shooting massacre were the talk to go ahead (as a concealed carry state, security at the event could not guarantee no one with a gun would be allowed in the building while Sarkeesian was speaking.

Sadly, Sarkeesian has long been the target of sexist attacks—ever since she first launched a Kickstarter campaign in 2012 to support the series. “The threats against Ms. Sarkeesian are the most noxious example of a weeks-long campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture,” Wingfield wrote.

Even former avowed Gamergaters have hung up their trilbies and abandoned their positions as everything became more extreme and untenable—or they suddenly found themselves on the opposing side of the harassment campaign. Those within the industry openly made statements against Gamergate, including: gaming companies such as Blizzard and the Entertainment Software Association (commonly know as the ESA and gaming’s top trade group); publications like Game Informer, Polygon, and Giant Bomb; and creative luminaries such as Tim Schafer and Damion Schubert.

And yet—and yet—it is still happening. On January 11, Zoe Quinn charted her struggles to get the legal system to do something about the avalanche of hate spewing her way. She talked about how demolished her life was and continued to be by the campaign. She wrote, in full: “The same wheels of abuse are still turning, five months later. I’ve been coming to terms that this is a part of my life now, trying to figure out what to do about it, and how to move forward with so many people trying to wrap themselves around my ankles. It’s been hard to accept that my old life is gone and that I can never get back to it. But I’ve found purpose in the trauma, in trying to stop it from happening again, to use my experience to show how these things are allowed to happen, and to further a dialog on how to actually stop it. If I can’t go home, maybe I can at least get out of this elevator shaft. Maybe I can help end August. Maybe you can, too.”

In the games publication Giant Bomb’s discussion forums, game developer and tech writer Brianna Wu wrote “I was talking to Zoe Quinn this week, who told me about a folder on her computer called, ‘The ones we lost.’ And it was young girls that wrote her saying they were too scared to become game developers.

For every visible woman who has stepped away from their platform, how many less vocal or less well-known participants have we lost? In the wake of Gamergate, for instance, Kathy Sierra, a tech writer who was once the target of hacker and horrible person weev, walked away from the online persona she’d built as Serious Pony to insulate herself from further violence.  How many women stopped participating in online communities and massively multiplayer online and co-op games? How can we possibly know the real numbers of the ones we lost.

Gaming Industry Women

Egypt Expands Suez

Egypt is expanding the Suez canal in a drive to boost economic growth, and the canal has already achieved record income in 2014, General Mahab Mameesh, Suez Canal Authority board chairman said.

The Egyptian people succeeded in collecting more than 64 billion pounds (USD nine billion) in eight days for the massive expansion project because they believe that Egypt was heading towards further security, stability and economic development, Mameesh said.
He was speaking at a workshop about the development of the Suez canal, held on sidelines of the Egyptian Economic Development Conference (EEDC), and attended by Egyptian President Abdelfatah Al-Sisi and Saudi Crown Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz.

The expansion of the Suez canal aims at boosting its capacity to receive giant vessels, through deepening the navigation path to 66 feets as well as setting waiting time to 11 hours, down from 18, he said.  The Egyptian government has created legislations to protect investors, established a solid infrastructure that lure businessmen.  The new Suez canal will be linked to land, sea and air networks in order to facilitate transport of goods.

Suez Expansion

How Switzerland Survives

Vladimir Putin made the argument today that a little gossip is good for politics, governance and the heart-rate. Otherwise life is boring.  All gossip surrounding his ten-day absence from the world scene is focused on TIchino, Switzerland, where his first or second or perhaps third child may have been born to a young Russian gymnast.  Italian politicians like Berlusconi use Switzerland for the same reason Putin did, privacy.  Now Switzerland has added to its list of crucial businesses — which includes cuckoo clocks, cheese, watches, privacy and beneficial owners, the mistress category. This tiny country knows how to survive. And we are entering the Kremlin’s announced competition for the best gossip on the Putin Absence,

 Tichino, Switzerland

Engaging Men in 50/50

The Women in Management group was originally created to spearhead initiatives specifically dedicated to the empowerment of GSB women. However, Jenn Wilcox Thomas and Wendy Wen, current co-presidents of WIM, believed the organization was missing a critical voice in its membership. Where were the men in their conversations? The two women shared a core philosophical belief that WIM needed to tap men as partners in advancing gender equity. Barnes too, shared this vision. As a son of two high-powered corporate executives (his mother is Brenda Barnes, former President and CEO of Pepsi-Cola North America), it was perfectly natural to him that women would be in positions of top leadership and that men would be their equal partners at home and in the workplace. For Barnes to collaborate with the WIM co-presidents seemed inevitable.

However, forming the partnership had its own challenges. Even after Barnes began paying membership dues to WIM, he felt like a “due-paying, non-member.” “They weren’t really sure what to do with me,” he recalls. Barnes remained undeterred. Eventually, someone handed him the WIM leadership application, so he applied to be on their board. Wen and Wilcox Thomas jumped on the opportunity to engage men in their initiatives. And with that, WIMmen was founded.

1.  Listen. Learn facts.  Listen to other’s stories.

2.  Recognize bias and don’t call people out.

3.  Expect to say “the wrong thing.”

4. Create small groups in safe places.

5.  Invite male superiors.

6.  Build on call support group.

7.  Invite across generations.

8. Commit to one act.

 Men and Women's Groups

 

 

Mary Jo White, SEC head, Defends Use of Waivers

Bartlett Naylor writes:  On March 12, Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Mary Jo White publicly returned fire for the first time on the charge from outsiders and two of her fellow commissioners that her agency is soft on Wall Street.

Cut through her rhetoric, however, and what she’s saying: “The SEC trusts Wall Street.”

Here’s the background. The Department of Justice has fined major Wall Street firms for serious violations. The firms have settled by paying billions of shareholder funds in penalties. These infractions trigger other sanctions including the loss of certain privileges at the SEC. But the SEC has generally waived these sanctions. Commissioners Kara Stein and Luis Aguilar have voted against these waivers in several cases, arguing, among other reasons, that waivers dilute the deterrence effect of the automatic sanctions.

On March 12 Chair White drew a line in the sand. These sanctions should not be viewed as deterrence. She explained: “It must be emphasized, however, that it would not be an appropriate exercise of our authority to deny a waiver to further punish an entity for its misconduct or history of misconduct, or in an effort to deter it or others from possible future misconduct, by letting stand an automatic disqualification where the circumstances do not warrant it.”

White undoubtedly penned this speech well before the eve of the speech and advantaged the prodigious legal talent on the SEC staff to buttress her legal case. The written speech includes footnotes and the assertion just quoted contains a footnote to a rule the SEC approved in July 2013. White approved this rule. In fact, however, the rule does not buttress her case. On the contrary, the rule speaks directly about deterrence. The rule makes reference to deterrence five separate times.

Leaders in Congress side with Stein and Aguilar. Rep. Maxine Waters, (D-Calif.) and ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee has promised to introduce legislation to limit the use of waivers and bolster the deterrence effect.  Sen. Sherrod Brown also challenged White’s use of waivers.

From high altitude, Wall Street has escaped true justice. Even as the DOJ claims that major firms committed massive fraud contributing to the financial crisis of 2008 that evicted millions from their homes and jobs and erased $12 trillion from the economy, no Wall Street executive went to prison.

There’s an additional troubling element to White’s position. White says that the only factor that the SEC should consider is whether the firm can honestly provide the services that the sanctions would otherwise interrupt.  That’s a precarious place for the SEC. She’s essentially asking her fellow commissioners to enter the attestation business. That’s a process used in enforcement at companies where CEOs are required to attest that their firms comply with accounting or other rules. The default position should be what the law and rules dictate—loss of privileges. If a firm can build an independently verifiable case that it can honestly serve the market in a division separate from where the violations took place, then the SEC might grant a waiver. Short of that, the SEC should not be saying: “We trust Wall Street.”

Mary Jo White

Hillary Clinton’s Message

In a press conference at the UN Hillary Clinton explained the use of a private server for US State Department emails.   The server was located at the Cintons’ home in Chappaqua.  She did not say who paid for the server.  This is important.  It may well have been the Clinton Foundation and a clear conflict of interest.  She said that no one should have access to the server.  Is she really in a position to decide which messages stored there are the pubic’s business?

While many women, the founders of this website included, would llike to see a woman President of the US, it has to be the right woman.  We are offended by by Mrs. Clinton’s statements that her election represents the future.  She has been running for Preisdent for fifty years.  Where is her message?

Issues of banking corruption, inequality, educatoin and jobs are most important for most people.  Mrs. Clinton does not talk about these issues.  She capped her news conference with the phrase, “We should be about the business of the 21st Century.”  That business apparenttly is to elect Mrs. Clinton President.

Until she answers questions about the ownership of the server and who pays for it, until she reveals the tax relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton’s personal taxes, until she speaks out on some to the really important issues of the 21st Century, she should not try for the top job.

Mrs. Clinton appears to be tone deaf.  In her 2008 campaaign, she surrounded herself with yes people who talked only about Mr. Clinton’s title when he returned to the White House.  Should is be First Laddie?  She lost the party’s nomination in a year when she could have won.

We also have to look carefully at her relationship with Goldman Sachs.  She is on their payroll.  The head of Goldman and perhaps even Goldman itself set her son-in-law up in a hedge fund businesss he was claerly not qualitied to run.  Chelsea’s wedding had to be postponed until her future father-in-law got out of jail  A congressman, he was convicted on 31 counts of fraud and served his term in federal jail. Questions still remain about antique furniture which Denise Rich may have given the Clintons in exchange for a pardon for Marc, a fugitive hiding out in Zug, Switzerland.

Questions, questions.  This is the business of the 21st century.  To insure that our political leaders are in a position to represent us and not themselves.

Questions.  So many unanswered questions.

An excellent summary of the history of Government Archives and detail on exactly what Clinton did in the email case.  ” In October 2009, 10 months into her tenure at state, new regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration required federal agencies to ensure that records sent or received on private e-mail systems “are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.”   Government Archives

Hillary v Hillary?