ProWomanProLife

Pharmaceutical companies are first and foremost companies. It’s not in their best interest to make one-shot wonder drugs that get you sorted out for life, so they aren’t on the market. Contraceptives are no different. With over 50% of women in the US using “The Pill”, that is big business. Multiply that by their average length of usage, which from the women I’ve spoken to can be anywhere from 5 to 35 years, and you’ve got yourself a money making scheme with serious longevity. So will this new male contraceptive see the light of day?

After a more than 30-year struggle, an unassuming Indian engineer named Sujoy K. Guha is on the brink of what could well be the most revolutionary contraceptive technology since the pill — and this time it’s for men. [...]

So what you get is a one-time, hormone-free sperm blocker that you can turn off whenever you want. [...]

“We had no support from industry,” Guha said. “And basically neither I nor my colleagues were really knowledgeable and experienced with respect to new drug development.”

Part of the problem was the elegance of Guha’s design, which from a marketing perspective was, frankly, too effective.

“To men, an ideal method would be cheap and long-lasting. To company shareholders, an ideal method would be expensive and temporary,” Lissner explained by email.

“Pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to develop a cheap long-lasting method, and we can’t expect them to take the lead. Men will get one if, and only if, they demand it of their governments,” she said.

I’m not in favour of this drug, but this article exposes the problem with pharmaceutical companies not wanting to make anything “too effective”. What’s worse is that they tie themselves to social issues in a way that has sway on public opinion (throwing a few million to advertising for Marie Stopes is going to have big impact). They simply won’t manufacture a product or support an organization that won’t make them serious bank, social impact be damned. And this is a problem, because the consumer/patient ends up with a product that they’re told is in their best interest when it’s really in the best interest of the company. I’m not sure we can have it both ways.

Whether or not he becomes President, it is always nice to have influential figures who declare themselves publicly to be pro-life.

I saw the headline and thought rather cynically that he is only doing this because a Republican nominee running against President Obama pretty much has to be pro-life to win. But then I read the story linked above, and it would take a lot of embarrasing backtracking to undo some of the statements he’s made. I’ll take it as good news.

So the Advertising Standards Council has a pretty funny ad campaign out these days. One of the TV spots shows a teenage girl climbing out of her window at night. In walks her Dad and she says, “I was going to the library…” Then the lights start flashing, music starts playing and some funny looking men come out dancing. Altogether quite funny and the punchline is that just because you dress something up, it doesn’t make it true.

Oh Advertising Standards. I saw this and was reminded of a time when the Advertising Standards Council dressed something up to take a truth and make it untrue. Yes, it’s true, when it comes to things abortion-related I have a memory like an elephant. An elephant, I tell you. (In other areas, God Help Us All if I lose my iPhone and am expected to actually show up to any appointment of any kind. Or work. I digress.)

Back in May 2008, the Advertising Standards Council rejected ads from Life Canada which showed a pregnant woman and stated that in Canada, an abortion can be had throughout all nine months of pregnancy. This, they found to be deceptive, which stands contrary to the facts as stated in Canada’s lack of an abortion law of any kind, and statistics, as put forward by Statistics Canada, which shows hundreds of late term abortions are conducted annually.

So join me, friends, in remembering an ad campaign that was completely truthful, but because of ideology, or the abortion distortion, or [insert dancing men, disco lights and the soundtrack from Saturday Night Fever] got pulled by the Advertising Standards Council.

A walk down memory lane and a new slogan was born. Just because the Advertising Standards Council disagrees, doesn’t make it untrue.

There’s a story on CNN about how women can get ahead in the workplace. I especially like rules 1 and 8:

1. Quit thinking the workplace is fair

[...] The reality is that gender matters, says professor Sheila Wellington, who teaches the course “Women in Business Leadership” at New York University’s Stern School of Business.

She says one of the most common mistakes women make is believing the playing field is equal. “They have it in their minds that it doesn’t matter if I’m a woman.”

By acknowledging the barriers ahead such as the difficulties of reintegrating into the work force after having a child, women can better plan their careers. Wellington also pointed out some managers still believe women may not work as hard or put in as many hours. A woman can overcome this assumption by putting herself forward and offering to do more work.

8. The way you look and talk matters

Your attire and speaking skills affect how others perceive you, and it’s nothing personal.

Author and psychologist Lois P. Frankel says company cultures may vary, but proper workplace etiquette is essential for landing the next big job. Frankel advises young women to look to how successful senior female managers dress and emulate that style.

When women communicate, they should stick with simple but confident sentences. The more words used, the softer the message sounds, Frankel says. Women can also practice short speeches at home to help push their main ideas to the beginning.

Maybe you think the workplace ought to be more fair. It doesn’t matter what you think. So you have to work harder to prove yourself? Do it. If you care about the job, why wouldn’t you? But I especially like the last point about looks (and language). Please, girls, do yourselves a favour and dress for the office, not the club. Showing too much skin (even when you’re really good looking) hurts your career prospects. When in doubt, cover that cleavage a bit… (hint: if we can see all the way down to your bra without effort when you bend forward a little bit, your shirt is too revealing).

The other points are worth reading, too.

________________________

Véronique adds: I especially liked  4. Don’t ever, ever cry at work. My husband ran a company with only men for about 6 years before a couple of women joined their ranks and he was floored by the hand-holding he had to do (figuratively speaking of course). Ladies, get a grip.

_______________________

Andrea adds: I’ve been away, so I’m late adding this. Just wanted to say that I’ve had to “hold men’s hands” in the past too. Don’t mean to make this tit for tat, but it’s worth mentioning. Every person is different. Finally, though I have fortunately never cried at work (I have come dangerously close) I don’t think this is a cardinal sin, depending on how/why it happens. If a couple of tears fall and you ignore them and move ahead, I’d say that’s just fine. If you cry and expect people (your manager) to care, that’s a problem.

It will come as no great surprise to regular readers that I am against forcing corporations to hire more women. This is the proposal of one Senator, Celine Hervieux-Payette. Meanwhile, Senator Linda Frum also opposes the measure.

What’s annoying is that Hervieux-Payette was in business for many years. One would think she’d have an idea about how business works as a result.

You know, I have no idea what she’s talking about… And I suspect she doesn’t, either.

Here’s something that will surprise – nay, astound! – Véronique: Mothers who take time “off” to raise their kids tend to get lower wages when they do return to the workforce. We can discuss whether this is fair until we’re blue in the face, the fact remains that mothers who re-enter the workforce after a few years out of it aren’t in the same position, wage-wise, as women who never left.

But then, mothers have children. True, children tend not to help with one’s financial situation, at least not while they’re very young. But maybe there’s more to the work-life balance than a big paycheque?

There’s money in this! Imagine how many more people would buy a minivan if they were sexier…

A news story claims American Apparel could soon be driven out of business. Colour me delighted. Why? Oh, let me see… (Click on the “Continue reading” link to see the images. Warning: They are graphic.) Continue Reading »

I don’t feel as passionately about this as I do say about abortion, but why on earth would I hand over all my personal information to any old store who asks? I always ask them why they need this information, and they usually say they don’t. 

So I’m glad to see this column called “Why does retail want my details?” It’s a question we should all ask.