Pauline Brown, cultural expert, Harvard Business School Professor, Sirius XM Host, former Chairman of LVMH NA. This week on the POD, the new feminist movement. Alive and kicking or a sleeping giant? Is it the best of times or the worst of times? What is the feminism movement today, and what’s needed? Find out only on the Uprising Pod, with Scott Goodson. For more ideas on Uprising and movements, cultural movements and movement marketing, follow Uprising!!! on Facebook. We’ll continue to publish brand-new columns on a regular basis. Hey, do us a favor and please give Uprising!!! a review on iTunes. Scott Goodson is the author of best-selling book ‘Uprising: how to build a brand and change the world by sparking cultural movements,’ available on Amazon.com. Scott has helped create and build some of the world’s most iconic brands. He is founder of StrawberryFrog the world’s first movement marketing agency.
Uprising Interview transcript
Pauline Brown & Feminism
TEASE: In my recollection, women are banding together and taking on economic issues using their market power in a way that they haven’t. There’s always been protests and movements against certain companies or certain individuals simply because it wasn’t necessarily in keeping with a woman’s agenda. But, now it actually is making a difference. It’s getting people the numbers of women or even the threat that many women could come together and sue their buying power to affect change that companies are responding to. I think Washington will respond to it as well.
INTRO: Welcome to Uprising. Each episode looks at what it takes to make the most dynamic and successful and cultural movements. Some of them in the business world, some in the social realm, some in politics, and some in between to see why people start uprisings. What gives those initiatives momentum and keeps them going and most important what lessons can you learn from these movements and how it apply them to your business and even personal life. Let’s explore the secret to sparking movements that move people into action.
Passionate ideas, controversial ideas, uprising ideas. The power is now in the hands of anyone to start a cultural movement.
SCOTT: Pauline Brown is a professor at the Harvard Business School and most recently the North American Chairman of LVMH, the world’s leading luxury goods company. Pauline, it is an honor and a pleasure to have you back on the uprising pod.
PAULINE: Any excuse to talk to you, Scott, I’m there.
SCOTT: Today we have an interesting topic. That is feminism and where is it today? Where does it have to go in order to be relevant to all of those women and men who decided to vote for Donald Trump? I think an interesting starting point is the idea that the resistance to Trumpism is associated with the rise of the new feminist movement. I mean, the Women’s March in Washington was the start of this whole resistance to the new government. With that in mind, what is the modern feminist movement today?
PAULINE: I guess I would start off by saying, it may be a false equivalent to say that the rise of one of thing is somehow correlated to the outcome of another thing–in this case, the rise of a new form of feminist in conjunction with the election of Trump. I think there’s a congruence of events and movements that are happening that some of which are connected and some of which are not. The march in Washington was an interesting case. I don’t think it was something that was spawned out of the election. I think it was a culmination of years of a sort of oppressed voice among women across all sort of socioeconomic segments across race and, frankly, across family boundaries where it really wasn’t a women’s march. It was a march in support of women. I don’t know the actual breakdown, but I know that there was a lot of men that was unexpected turnout among men in support of women. I think that’s an important shift from past women-centric activities. The other point I would make goes back to the first argument I was suggesting that the outcome of the election wasn’t necessarily a statement for feminism or against feminism. I look at the outcome of that election as not so much the voting for Trump. I think it was the voting against Hillary. I don’t look at the voting against Hillary as one of a voting against women or a woman. I think it was really a voting against Hillary. It’s sad to me that with her downfall comes questions about an entire segment of the population and current political structure. I don’t that is the case. say that the rise of one of thing is somehow correlated to the outcome of another thing–in this case, the rise of a new form of feminist in conjunction with the election of Trump. I think there’s a congruence of events and movements that are happening that some of which are connected and some of which are not. The march in Washington was an interesting case. I don’t think it was something that was spawned out of the election. I think it was a culmination of years of a sort of oppressed voice among women across all sort of socioeconomic segments across race and, frankly, across family boundaries where it really wasn’t a women’s march. It was a march in support of women. I don’t know the actual breakdown, but I know that there was a lot of men that was unexpected turnout among men in support of women. I think that’s an important shift from past women-centric activities. The other point I would make goes back to the first argument I was suggesting that the outcome of the election wasn’t necessarily a statement for feminism or against feminism. I look at the outcome of that election as not so much the voting for Trump. I think it was the voting against Hillary. I don’t look at the voting against Hillary as one of a voting against women or a woman. I think it was really a voting against Hillary. It’s sad to me that with her downfall comes questions about an entire segment of the population and current political structure. I don’t that is the case.
SCOTT: Could you argue though that the Trump election reignited a new form of feminism?
PAULINE: I think there is a new form of feminism that’s emerging notwithstanding the election. I see it in other forms. For example, for the first time, in my recollection, women are banding together and taking on economic issues, using their market power in a way that they haven’t. They have always been protests and movements against certain companies or certain individuals simply because it wasn’t necessarily in keeping with a woman’s agenda. But, now it actually is making a difference. It’s getting people the numbers of women or even the threat that many women could come together and sue their buying power to affect change is something that companies are responding to. I think Washington will respond to it as well.
SCOTT: What do you think about the role of women in power? Is it better today or worse? There are no women involved in the US government’s attempt to rewrite health care. At the same time, we have Angela Merkel in Germany. We have women involved in a lot of movements like the three women who founded the Black Lives Matter movement. We have Theresa May leading the Europe movement. Marine Le Pen in France and her cousin who wants to upset her and take away the party of the national front. So there are women in power, but do you think it’s better today or worse today than it was in the past?
PAULINE: Globally, I think it’s better than it’s ever done and measurably better than half a generation ago. I think the US hasn’t progressed nearly to the extent of some of these advanced markets around the world. It has remarkably enough not advanced in a way that I have seen in places like India–in not so advanced markets. I think the US is more stuck in a tradition, in a thought process that’s not been as favorable for women. Some of that–and I think this is playing out in a lot of ways–but the US right now is a victim of its own success. It’s a young country and over the course of barely two centuries, it became by far the biggest world power. It did so, initially, on the back of slavery, which allowed us to expand into new territories and be very productive agriculturally and otherwise. Then the industrial revolution, which was built on automation and built on a very top-down way of setting up companies and other institutions. Now, the world is moving past those particular power structures. There’s reluctance in there because it did so well under them. I think it explains some of the race issues we still have–not overtly but covertly. It’s definitely explaining, for example, why the workforce hasn’t evolved in proving things like child care or even considered in a way that women and their rights have evolved. There’s what we say, and there are our behaviors that are still very entrenched in old world way of operating. In the case of the US old world, it’s really 40s, 50s, 60s. We are not operating on the 2017 mindset, especially institutional government.
SCOTT: I think you definitely see that in other parts of the world and in market countries like Canada and Sweden which are a lot smaller than the United States. The government in those countries have made laws that forced upon society systems and structures that allow women to be both mothers and leaders of companies or leaders of government. In fact, I think in Sweden today they have a law that 50 percent of the government have to be women, which makes sense because they are representing women and makeup 50 percent of the population. You obviously work with a lot of young people in your role as a professor at Harvard. What message did the president send to your women students?
PAULENE: So, I happen to teach a very pragmatic group. When I give talks to grads and especially undergrads in the humanities and other liberal art settings, I think there’s much more debate and reflection on what does that mean for society and what does that mean for me as a woman? The group that I am teaching–first of all, they’re Harvard business school. They are there to study business leadership. They are already a very confident group of women or they wouldn’t have gotten to that point given all the kinds of screens they’ve gone through to get there. I don’t think they are representative of what I would find in 20 somethings across the board. That said, I think there are other things on their mind, having less to do with what Trump represents or anything frankly that the political leadership might represent. I think what really plagues them is how they will continue to excel and lead and keep up with their male classmates while having things that are so specific to women like children. I think that plagues them, and I don’t think we are any closer to a solution now than we were frankly when I graduated from business school 25 years ago.
SCOTT: DO you feel that issue is something they are leaning into more and are they becoming more activists to change those structures so that there are more? Do they want to have power in their careers and in their lives to be able to deal with the motherhood issue, the parental issue, but also be an engaged member of an organization like government or company?
PAULINE: I think one way they expressed a reconciliation is that they expressed a tie or a draw to entrepreneurialism. When I graduated from business school, I couldn’t remember any of female classmates who contemplated starting their own business–not just right out of school but even the next several years after business school. Given the choice, if they knew they could get the funding if they knew they had a good idea that was well encouraged, most of them coming out of business school right now would want to dive in and start doing business. I don’t think that’s just because they look at the likes of a Mark Zuckerberg and say, “Wow I could become a billionaire by the time I am 30.” I don’t think it’s just about that. I think it’s also about the freedom that that represents. I think it’s about the ability to affect change in an environment that you can control. The reality is that even at the senior-most levels, any man or woman cannot control or cannot have that much change in any short time frames over these entrenched corporate structures. Whereas if you start a company or join an earlier stage company, one voice can make a huge difference.
SCOTT: Plus you make the rules.
PAULINE: Right. That’s very appealing.
SCOTT: You can build your company around your lifestyle versus the other way around.
PAULINE: I think the flaw in that thinking is that there are other pressures that come with having your own business not least of which has the intensity to do everything because you don’t have the necessarily the funding or the cushion to be able to delegate, to spread risk over many over many months. Often times, the intensity of that is going to conclude in the balance they think they are going to be able to pursue. It’s a different kind of pressure certainly than having a boss or a set of systems that you have to fit within.
SCOTT: You’re married to your spouse and you’re married to your company.
PAULINE: If your spouse is part of the company, that’s even worse. I’ve seen that a few times too.
SCOTT: I personally k the experience with my own spouse. I think if you have a very clear delineation between roles and responsibilities and kind of respect those and respect that, it can actually work really well. If someone you can trust and share something with, but you must know: no business in the bedroom and no talk at the dinner table. You keep those things separate.
PAULINE: You’re right. You have struck an unusual arrangement in that you each occupy very different places within the business. Your level involvement is different so that allows a little bit more balanced family life. If Karin was traveling to the extent that you are, that would be problematic.
SCOTT: That’s true. Then we would never see each other. We would have to meet up at like Copenhagen airport for a quickie or something.
PAULINE: Ship the kids off for another quick interaction.
SCOTT: You talked about you graduating school and your life and things haven’t changed that much. In your own life, though, has the way people see gender and the role of women changed at all in those 25 years or even in those last three or four months when Trump became president? Do you see a change? Is it going backward? Forwards?
PAULINE: People who are uncomfortable with Trump being president or who are discomforted by it are discomforted by it for so many reasons. Least of which is that he is a man and a bit crude. The bigger issues are his approach to government and his policies. There are so many reasons to point to and say this is not my president nor the president I wanted to show my children. I think that particular set of issues around his misconducts in passed and chauvinistic attitude. I think that kind of pales that if you take in contrast to Bill Clinton who was seen as a champion for progress, who prior to some of his inappropriate behaviors becoming public, it was really quite adored by women. I think that his actions became more of a betrayal. I think we expected more of him and I think we thought that agenda of progress and of women’s empowerment was somewhat periled by seeing a married man participate in the worst inappropriate male behavior. At least speaking for myself, that one hit me on a personal level much harder. Tump–my personal reaction–is there are so many issues that I have with his presidency and with his whole presentation, that I almost assume his behavior towards women is what it is. If anything, I feel bad for his wife and his past wives. There are they ones that have to suffer through that. I expect no better.
SCOTT: Do you see yourself–in your own life, the people you relate to and the people you work with–do you see them thinking differently than they did before Trump? Do women still have a role in the upper echelon of business the way they use to?
PAULINE: I think the first question, which is one that I have asked myself over the years is: Do you want it? Careful what you ask for. There are many different forms of power and there are many different forms of success. I think we are much more open and liberal now as to what we can look to in a certain sense of admiration. The longer to me is the fact that someone has the big fancy title and sorts of corporate quirks and having the sense of having arrived. I think we understand the complexities and the tradeoffs, much more profoundly than we did 10 or 20 years ago. There are new forms of success. I think the archetype that is getting the most admiration and visibility are those who are creating the new business and new business models and new ways of thinking–those who are expressing creativity, those that are thought leaders. That typically isn’t someone sitting in the corporate realms. I think point number one is that if it’s not what you want then you don’t really feel necessarily disappointed or discouraged that you don’t get it. I think the real question is having more clarity on how to go for what you actually do want. I do think we are in an interesting juncture where if anything some of the shifts in female empowerment–and I do see women approaching the issues and their rights and their ambitions with a lot more assertiveness now than they did in the past. I also think that’s affecting men and where they fall in this. We really haven’t had an equivalent men’s movement to redefine what it means to be a man in a society where women have more choice than they ever had, have new forms of expression, are increasingly independent–not independent just financially but psychically as well. I think that’s one of the issues that I am waiting to see how it plays out. How do young men–and more established men. I can see more established men cling to resistance. They want to make America great again, which is making America like it was for their fathers who had all these sorts of opportunities that are now so plentiful for them in this generation. That’s where they’re coming from. The next generation that doesn’t mean anything. They didn’t know that America.
SCOTT: Are there still women issues or do we have human issues that we have to address?
PAULINE: I think, certainly, we have societal issues. What we are talking about right now is an interplay. It is between sexes. It’s between socioeconomic groups. It’s between races. There’s a lot of societal issues that we haven’t sorted out properly and fairly. Separately, there are humanistic issues, which are less connected in my mind to the women’s movement and so forth, and more around approaching our gains with a sense of what is the impact of that on the larger population? What’s the impact on the environment? What’s the impact on animals and their rights of deservedness not to suffer? There’s a lot of suffering at the expense of progress. We take so much pride.
SCOTT: It seems there was a sort of structure that was developed back in the Crescent about how agrarian societies should function and that includes humans at the top apex and then women somewhere beneath the male and the beasts of burden somewhere beneath that and mother earth kind of beneath that. That world order obviously is still here and no one has really been able to challenge it fundamentally. That’s really the issue. How do we flip that pyramid around so that we start with the earth then the animals?
PAULINE: The reality is that the pyramid has shifted. Consciously or unconsciously, the people fighting to Make America Great Again are really to restore that hierarchy that started with white males and then extended to white females and then to blacks and then to animals and then to earth. Now all of a sudden, we see how decayed the earth is. The earth will outlast humans for sure but it will go through a lot of decay and it will have to rehabilitate. Many people who are afraid of the changes we are talking about to restore a stability are really saying that they’re traditional and rightful position is being challenged. That rightful position at the top of the pyramid.
SCOTT: Which it should.
PAULINE: Which it should. You and I think so because we are progressives and privileged. We don’t feel the suffering if the EPA puts protection of birds ahead of some local employer who wants to use the resources–to cook birds. The process to kill birds is industrial work. The challenge is for those who are caught in the middle. I feel for them, but this is the laws of Darwin. It’s also industries that are being caught in that survival struggle.
SCOTT: Longer term, the challenge becomes if you accept the premise of that, then as artificial intelligence sort of takes over for human intelligence, they could just follow that same philosophy. There are humans there. They don’t necessarily mean to harm humans. Humans just happen to be in the way of them needing to produce paper clips. By the way, humans are made of carbons, so let’s just use humans. Getting back to the feminist movement. Do you t the feminist movement is dead or maybe just irrelevant?
PAULINE: I don’t think it’s irrelevant. I think one of the problems is a lack of energy. I’ll take my students for example. By all definition, they should proudly call themselves feminist. They are on a fast career track. Whether they are married or not, is a choice. If they are pregnant and don’t want to have a child, that’s also a choice–as the long stands. They would fight hard if that was ever in peril, most of them. No matter where they stand on the political spectrum, that is a thing they hold sacred. All the basic tenets of feminism would apply to them. Yet, if I ask the class how many women out there are feminist? I think maybe 10 or 15 percent of them would raise their hand. It’s not a label that they are comfortable with. I don’t know, by the way, if my peers are so comfortable with it either. You’re a branding expert. People often confused the implications of the brand with the implications of the movement. The movement to me is alive and well. But, I don’t know people–even around that March on Washington who were quick to call it a feminist movement.
SCOTT: The last few months, we’ve seen a number of women come out against the leaders of Fox News. What do you make of this? This has been going on for years, but over the last six months, it seems for the first time someone realized I should come up and say something. Why haven’t they come out earlier? What has changed?
PAULINE: I think the real change here and the whole system tumbled down, starting with Roger himself is that the advertisers got spooked. I think if not for that, I think they could’ve stuck to the old narrative. They probably could have discounted the accusations. Why did the advertisers start to pull? You had a 100 million dollars alone just going toward the Bill O’Reilly show. Fox made the calculus. I don’t think they made the calculus that he as to go because we want to lose a 100 million dollars this year. I don’t know if that money was going to be reallocated to other programs. I think they made the calculus because they said we are going to lose that money, and we better get ahead of that issue. It would have become intolerable for an advertiser. If you were the last man standing as an advertiser on Bill O’Reilly after the issues have become public and after the momentum was mounting, then you’re twice as bad. It’s one thing if you were always there and advertising and supporting those statements. But, now that we know… I think they were rats on a sort of sinking ship mentality among the advertisers. I think that forced management to make a pragmatical decision. I wish in my dreams that management in that point, not even for business reasons but just this is not ok. This is not ok for an organization. I think part of the problem with big companies. Many companies not just big but if the stakes were higher is that most of them are not really thinking about sustainability in an economic term. If you use the term sustainability, it’s often referred to around environmentalism. But, what about sustainability around a company? How many companies we know and may be highly successful today could we say with great confidence will be in that same place 50 years from now? Remarkably few. That’s not an issue of disruption and innovation. There are few companies. Maybe Google. What makes Google great now, won’t necessarily make Google great in a different technological era. We are not going to stop consuming content.
SCOTT: It’s interesting. I can see how old school companies or companies brought up by old school men can get tangled up in these issues. What I find fascinating are these new age companies. These issues still exist. These headlines with Uber. They have similar problems like Fox News.
PAULINE: What’s interesting about the Uber case–Uber hasn’t been around for that long. It went from zero to 20 billion or whatever it is in very few years. It can go from 20 back to zero just as fast. The movements and the speed of change can hit companies both ways. Once the issues starting to become public it didn’t take long. It’s not like Fox News where these instances have been going on for a decade or two or more. It was certainly going on when Roger Ailes was there. There are many more mechanisms for people to share with the world what is going on, to protest. In the process, you had this counter movement to delete Uber, which was a hashtag. By the way, it was affecting the company. The company is still very big and publicly is being well managed in terms of its PR campaign. It searched for a more grown up COO to try to instill more better behaviors and so forth. I think what they are probably missing in that is that this is not an optics challenge. This is not getting in their version of a Charlene Sandburg and showing the world that they could have a more senior, mature woman at the top and keep everyone else in check. This is really why are these kids even starting down that path? What happened in their home life? My son wouldn’t act that way around other women. I can’t envision that. Even if there was a culture that encouraged it.
SCOTT: I was speaking with Katie Hood who runs a movement called One Love, which is a movement to stop relationship abuse and more importantly to establish values for positive relationships. It was the result of a young woman who was killed by her lacrosse player boyfriend in a fit of anger and rage. We were talking about how certain cultures in the United States, seem to be predisposed to this kind of behavior like sports culture. These are bigger issues that have to be dealt with. She’s doing a great job with her movement. You do see it and it does exist. People running companies see themselves almost in a sportsmanlike competition with other firms. It’s not unrealistic to see that behavior.
PAULINE: I do think certain culture breed it more than others. In the case of Uber, you not only have mostly guys–that’s a Silicon Valley phenomena of young, technical-oriented guys–but they are young. They are being charged with making huge decisions for ever expanding organizations with large budgets and very aggressive investors behind them. They don’t have the emotional readiness to expand that pressure properly.
SCOTT: It’s interesting. My first podcast was doing the primaries, and I interviewed Frans de Waal which is the world’s foremost primatologist at Emory University. I asked him to analyze facial of Donald Trump in the GOP. You can listen to that. It’s really funny. But, one of the things he said was that the first thing a chimpanzee does that is trying to challenge the alpha male in order to gain the respect of others is to beat up female chimpanzees. They beat them to demonstrate their strength and virility within the group. Once then they do that, they are respected and can take on bigger, tougher individuals.
PAULINE: I think dolphins also show a similar fraternal behavior for women. I heard that they would actually gang up and rape female dolphins so often that female dolphins have to travel in groups to create a cluster.
SCOTT: What was interesting about this observations was that it was happening at a time when he was in a sort of wrestling match with Megyn Kelly from Fox News. There was a little bit of that going on here. I guess the question I have is, throughout the process, the election, and Trump in the president. What do you think the response is or what kind of response has Trump invoked in women that you know?
PAULINE: I don’t know a representative sample of the population. I live in New York. I teach at another very elite East Coast institution at Harvard. My Facebook friends by in large probably out of almost a 1000 probably three would have voted the same way in the last election. I don’t know if I’m getting as full of a picture. When you ask me how do my peers and how do I feel that I react to the president..with a certain astonishment. In his place, unlike say Bill Clinton who respected for so many reasons except for cheating on his wife and with a young girl who could be daughter and lude behavior over many decades. It had all been whispered about at the time. That to me was something for me to get my arms around. With Trump, I am afraid about our security. I’m afraid about the kind of people he’s surrounding himself with and their level of competency. This locker room stuff–which I think is worse than locker room–but I don’t have the mental energy to worry about that one. These are the bigger issues that are planetary in nature, which will take a long time to recover from. I am sure of that.
SCOTT: One last question I have. Obviously, we want to see more women have power on company boards, running companies, in government. Eight percent of the government is women–or something like that maybe. Maybe it’s a bit more, but it’s significantly below the representation of the population. Without women in seats of power, are we missing out on emotional intelligence in business, in government? How would this be useful?
PAULINE: I’m convinced that without diversity…if you look at any ecosystem, the more homogenous it is, the more fragile it is. It’s very comforting if you are a certain type to be surrounded other types who look and feel and speak just like you. Human nature will always tend towards that kind of homogeneity. The sustainability of an organization or a culture or a species really depends on diversity. I think there are many ways to measure that diversity. I think the fact that women are well represented is a very important one, but it really is just one. I think it would be a mistake if any company to just pick a very narrow type of work as well because I got to say in my case as a white woman who was born and raised in New York who has multiple degrees, I have a worldview that will bring some diversity as a woman to a typical Fortune 500, but it wouldn’t bring nearly as much as someone might have grown up in the deep south or women of color, a woman whose parents were not well educated, and therefore had to overcome different sets of barriers. I would look at diversity very broadly, but I think it’s an extraordinary weakness for all institutions not to do it and not to do it now. I am also convinced that issues we’ve had can break down like the financial crisis of ’08/’09 could have been averted if you had decision making bodies at the board level, at the management level that reflected these sort of diversity of value systems and thought processes and ways of processing problems and addressing problems that are not very broadly reflected.
SCOTT: In Iceland, the law is that 50% of the boards have to be represented by women. I believe in those banks that have a majority of women on the board, they didn’t have any of the impacts that they banks did in Iceland. The risk tolerance is much lower than the men.
PAULINE: I think we have to be willing as well to give up some of the upside of taking big risks. There’s a time and a place to take big risks. When you have an upstarting working on a treatment for cancer. The incrementality of technological breakthrough is not going to get there. But a lot of the risk taking we see and we’ve seen it on Wall Street, it’s greed. It’s just about greed. It’s not about adding value or cracking the code. It’s about competitive advantage. It’s about self-worth, and that needs to be checked. It absolutely must be checked because it’s creating a lot of issues on the other side, including the economic inequities that we are seeing right now. A lot of that is an outpost of extreme greed of people who have the power to reward themselves disproportionately.
SCOTT: The follow-up question I have for you…One thing I am amazed at is your ability to work with young women and inspire them and give them guidance. I’ve seen a number of incredibly bright young women that you’ve taken the time to nurture. What do you say to the new generation of women who want to step out into the world and try to make an impact? What’s your advice? How do you guide them?
PAULINE: I would say a couple of things. First of all, success doesn’t come through one or two big breakthrough moves or decisions or promotions. It comes through an accumulation of a lot of smaller areas of growth and advancement and deepening. I think in general, men and women of this next generation should be patient. Growing up doesn’t necessarily follow a straight line. It’s almost more like a staircase. You sometimes have a big jump up and a long plateau. Sometimes it’s short and short. Allow for those bumpy trajectories so long as you’re moving in that right direction. In this case, I get a lot back from the kind of mentorship you are describing. I don’t do it out of altruism. I genuinely like the women. I don’t do it just because they’re women. I do it because they are extraordinary women. They are extraordinary people with a lot of promise. It’s inspiring to see them grow as it is to see my own children grow and prosper. I do think it doesn’t take much to have a big impact on women in a way that you are describing. For me to have that impact, it takes just giving them a bit of time here and there. Letting them all know that when there is a big decision, that, of course, I am here and that you can call on me. Even just knowing that even many of them don’t call on me, it gives them an extra sense of confidence as they go through some of the struggles. I would say this is all a journey. I am very encouraged by the quality of women I see coming of age, but the prospects to continue to. I have a radio show on Sirius XM as you know because you’ve been guessed. One of my last guests was my own mother, and I had a very delightful conversation with her. We talked about her coming of age. One of her first jobs working at a travel agency when she was working with my father, she was fired because she got pregnant. They didn’t think it was appropriate for a pregnant woman to be sitting in that reception area. She wasn’t happy about it, but it didn’t occur to her that there was any recourse. I think right now people get inappropriately fired all the time, but we have laws that were there in the past. We’ve come a long way, certainly legally and culturally too. Maybe not far enough, but I am very encouraged by what I see and by how clear it is to us of what good looks like.
SCOTT: Pauline Brown, human thought leader, a professor at Harvard Business School during the day and at night time we can hear you on the Sirius satellite radio. Your views are always inspiring and eye opening. Thank you for joining us today. It’s been really great.
PAULINE: Thank you. It’s great to talk to you, Scott.
SCOTT: Have a lovely afternoon.