Beautifully Complex

Note: This piece was originally featured on my Chicago Tribune Sex & Money blog.

Hello, Sex & Money readers.  Yeah, I know.  I’m an inconsistent blogger.  Sorry about that.  An explanation: I’ve been busy building a career, working non-stop, and must, in turn, direct my efforts toward things that, well, pay.  So while I look forward to changing the American cultural landscape with musings on all things gender-and-cash-related, this girl’s gotta work to get paid before she can work…well, writing for fun on a Tribune-sponsored blog (couldn’t think of anything that rhymed here).

Anyway, after taking a few minutes to catch up on political “news” this week, I felt compelled to tackle at least one of the issues that’s blowing up the poli-women-socio-economic-blogosphere: Ann Romney’s alleged “War on Women.”

Without going into my specific politics (something anyone who knows me can’t believe is going uncommented upon), I agree with the majority of femi-bloggers in that there currently exists a war on women  being waged across the American geo-political landscape.

But here’s the (not-surprising) thing: I think women are the ones dragging down our own rights, respect, and responsibility.  And while this observation is hardly the most observant or original, allow me make a few observations on where women “go wrong:”

* Agonizing/Apologizing About/For the Stay-At-Home vs. “Work” Dilemma: Admittedly, I’m not yet a mother (let the crowing begin), so I fail to completely understand the details of this war-waged-within-the-gender issue (as recently highlighted by the Anne Romney comments/debate).

Here’s the thing, though:  I’ve thought a lot about having and raising children.  And, knowing myself, when I do have kids (and continue working outside the home a ridiculous # of hours/week, because, honestly, I’ve sacrificed too much to stop once I’ve “made it”), my choices will inevitably bear significant personal and professional expense.  And given how much women ALREADY criticize my short hemlines, personal decisions, and vulgar vocabulary, I’m confident more than a few will question whatever names I choose for my offspring, decisions I make about their future, and nannies I employ for their care.  Men, however (and refreshingly), as in most things will remain at worst indifferent and at best supportive about whatever choices I make during the progress. As well they (and women) should.

In short, in fighting the “mommy wars,” women now find themselves standing opposite each other, verbally and emotionally destroying the other side while men do less work at home and continue to dominate at the office.  Who’s really winning here?

* The Slut, Whore, Hooker Conundrum: Why do women continue to buy into limited, lame, and narrow views of sexuality?  I call this the “She’s such a slut,” aka, “She’s not one of us” issue.

Girls, here’s a question: can you read this all the way back in 1938?  I have one request for you: stop it.  Just…stop it.  Stop defining yourselves and others through the demeaning (and male-centric) lens of “male-approved (limited) sexuality is the best sexuality.”  To wit: I am routinely dismayed, when I log into FB daily (yeah, I know) and read memes from girls THEMSELVES that call women “sluts,” “whores,” and “b1tches.”  Women, please, I beseech you:  make your own decisions, others will make theirs, and the world will continue spinning. Not everything has to be a gossipable moment. And when it comes to personal, “in-the-bedroom” decisions, be adults.  Be responsible.  Be happy.

“She’s so (fill-in-the-blank-disparaging-comment-about-appearance)”:I can’t help but give props to (of all people, an actress) Ashley Judd for her amazingly empowering piece in the Daily Beast, posted last week.  Without repeating the joint, she called out women for buying into the American patriarchal system that degrades, demeans, and demands physical “perfection” (as narrowly-defined) from women.  Here’s the thing: I hear, read, and consume far, far, far more terrible judgments and comments from women about women than I ever do men.  In my experience, it seems women far-more-than-men use the physical to disempower…who? Other women?  Since when did male approval exist as the sole currency within the world?  (Cue my “the bar for success for professional women is half-as-high as that for men” rant…no…wait…).

I mean, have you ever READ a woman’s magazine?  Traditional “men’s” magazines (i.e. GQ, Esquire, etc.) inspire and, yeah, empower their readers.  “How To Pick Out The Best Dinner Jacket” and “Here’s a Photo-Spread on Lynn Tilton” (maybe in my dreams, but whatever).  What do women’s magazines demand?  “PERFECT YOURSELF FOR HIM” and “LOSE WEIGHT, GAIN HIS LOVE AND YOUR SELF-ESTEEM” and “Here’s a Photo spread of…Hot Women” (as opposed to attractive men).  I mean, after an hour spent reading this dreck, and I feel like I’ve endured “Haze Week” at the Tri-Delt house.

So…yeah.  As I bid adieu, I’d like to pose one final question: What is it about women that craves and, even worse, supports this self-punishment, deprivation, and cruelty?  Damned if I know.

I just know I have some more work to get back to.

Happy Monday

Margaret Bogenrief Appearances/Media women

Hello Beautifully Complex readers (if there are any left, anyway).  I wanted to write a short note to both explain and apologize for my recent 3-mo absence.

A quick explanation: we – along with a small team – have worked (to partial success) to redesign the site.  Our hope was to make it more interactive – you, the reader, ask questions, I answer them in video-blog form, etc.  In short, some things have changed, others have not.

So here we are.  We’re working to finish the re-work of the site but, as always, work has, of course, interfered to a certain extent.  We do, however, expect to have the site fully operational by early September (2011), complete with videos, more pictures, and far more content.

Until then, please check out my page at Business Insider and ChicagoNow (Sex&Money).  And, of course, we always welcome you at the ACM Partners company site.

Margaret Bogenrief Update

The Economist has a compelling piece examining the ongoing changes to the legal professional (with a primary focus
on the U.S. market).  A change in orientation from rapid growth to managing costs and rationalizing areas of focus is pressuring many firms, and causing some to go out of business entirely.  Workforces are being rationalized, defensible niches are being defined, and professionals and firms ill-suited to the emerging ethos are being cast out.  Law is, in short, a profession in the midst of an industry-wide turnaround.

The legal profession in the U.S. had the wind at its back for over a generation.  William Henderson of Indiana University notes that spending on legal services rose to 1.8% of GDP in 2003, up from 0.4% in 1978.

The article identifies three key trends driving change in the legal industry:

• Cost-conscious clients.  Clients have grown increasingly savvy about their spending on legal services, and as a result are pushing back on the hourly billing model and pressing for alternative fee arrangements that result in law firms accepting fixed or contingent fees.  These alternative fee arrangements accounted for 16% of large firm revenue in 2010.
• Globalization.  The globalized marketplace is exposing the intense irrationality of charging associate rates for highly routine tasks such as document review.
• Technology.  Increasingly effective technical tools are challenging the value (for clients) of the traditional, highly leveraged model (i.e. partners at the top of a large pyramid made up of associates).

The U.S. legal industry is clearly facing challenges. Employment has declined for three straight years, with headcount at the top
250 firms down 8% since 2009.  There is an overwhelming need for this industry to rationalize itself and continue to provide
value to clients while reinventing the internal economics of the law firm model.

David Johnson Restructuring and Turnaround

Does the recent capture of Bin Laden yield expectations for lower gas prices?

Short answer is yes with an “if,” long answer no with a “but.” The current market reaction is, as with most things financial, irrational.

Bin Laden ceased being much more than an Al Qaeda figurehead approximately 5 years ago. Once the master planner and ultimate decision maker for “all things Al Qaeda,” the world’s once “#1 Fugitive” had, in recent years, retreated from “military mastermind” to, essentially, the role of terrorist consigliore.  And while his death was an extremely satisfying one to most Americans (and citizens of the Western World), it was little more than a symbolic victory.  That is, while Bin Laden’s demise may have provided closure to some of the September 11^th victims’ and victims’ families, his death may be, finally, best described as a simple salve on a still-grieving nation’s soul.

Notably, however, the market’s reaction (particularly, as manifested through oil prices) has been predictably irrational.  In short, the geo-political landscape is relatively similar to the one to which the world we woke up to on April 30^th, 2011; Bin Laden’s death, while a moral win, will do little to stabilize the Middle East.  In short, the world is not much different now as before.

Fundamentally, while the markets may interpret Bin Laden’s death as representing a potentially increased access to the world’s “key “oil fields, this is, as outlined above, an optimistic misjudgment of the actual effect of the militant leader’s death on the world’s access to and supply of oil.  Bin Laden represented one political “hiccup” in an otherwise unstable and unpredictable region.  His death does not a secure Middle East make.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, while little has ultimately changed geo-politically (as outlined above), even more importantly, there simply isn’t more oil in the world post-Bin Laden.  The world currently faces significant oil, and ergo energy, shortage, one that is not likely to disappear in our lifetimes.  When HSBC announced that only 50 years of oil remain on this earth, a ticking energy and policy time-bomb was set off, one that no amount of geo-political shifting and evolution can change.  So while Bin Laden’s death may have eased the world’s minds and hearts, an “improvement” in the oil markets (and prices) is an emotional reaction to this otherwise national (and, for some, personal) “win.”  One that will quickly revert back to the mean.

Margaret Bogenrief Commodities, Global Markets

The Institute for Supply Management’s April Manufacturing Business Survey showed a robust manufacturing sector, but it also illustrated severe challenges to profitability in that sector.  Growth has clearly returned, but rising input costs threaten to severely inhibit the profitability of that growth and imply liquidity challenges for smaller manufacturers in particular.

While growth in the manufacturing sector is now approaching the two-year mark, 17 of the 18 manufacturing sectors reported increased prices, with 72 percent of respondents indicating they experienced higher prices in April.  Sadly for manufacturers, in each month of 2011 no fewer than 64 percent of respondents have indicated an increase in input costs.

With many companies hesitant or unable to raise prices, margins are likely to continue to be pressured.  Manufacturers too small to access the (currently very amenable) capital markets may find themselves unable to access the financing needed to continue operations in this environment.  Growth opportunities may be left unexploited as management teams find themselves unable to finance necessary working capital increases.

Manufacturing is a sector that could find itself in need of turnaround advisors in coming months, as upward trending commodity prices and price sensitive customers prove to be a dangerous combination for the liquidity of this industry.

David Johnson Commodities, Globalization, Restructuring and Turnaround